2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 4

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2014

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: I would like to introduce someone from Prince George, actually, and he's here this afternoon. He's been acting as the interim president of the College of New Caledonia. He has a strong interest in the trades and technology, making sure that northern students have the opportunities that they need and deserve, and he's provided strong leadership in a time of transition. I'd ask my colleagues to make Bryn Kulmatycki from the College of New Caledonia very welcome to the House today.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I, too, would like to make mention of an individual visiting today — Michael McCoy, this afternoon receiving the British Columbia Achievement Award. He's the executive director of Touchstone Family Services in Richmond, and he's made an enormous contribution to the health and welfare of young folk in the riding of Richmond. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, would like to welcome Michael McCoy. I understand that he is a constituent, though I've not had the same privilege and pleasure as the Speaker has to meet with him. I hope that we can do that soon so that I, too, can get the benefit of his knowledge and work that he's been awarded for.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 17, and in Committee A the continued estimates of Education.

[1335]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

Sections 150 to 159 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:38 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I now call committee stage debate of Bill 18, entitled Water Sustainability Act.

[1340]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 18 — WATER SUSTAINABILITY ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 1:42 p.m.

The Chair: When we were in session last, we were on section 10.

On section 10 (continued).

S. Chandra Herbert: Good to see the minister and the able staff back. It's been a while. Here we go again for a wonderful journey down the Water Sustainability Act.

We're now on section 10. In this section, before we left off, we were discussing short-term approvals of water use and how in some cases they've been extended into really long-term approvals of water use with multiple approvals of the same short-term use for years upon years.

That has raised a number of concerns in communities asking: "Why don't we just push groups to do long term — seek water leases, water removals, permitting?" I think the reason they argue for that is there's a greater degree of public information shared.

I certainly think that we should make sure the public has the greatest degree of information about their water and that the permitting process is done in such a way
[ Page 3232 ]
that adequately consults First Nations people, community groups, people in the neighbourhood and, as well, that considers and supplies the public with the greatest degree of information about how this is being done in a sustainable way so that they can feel confident that their water is protected by their government when putting out short-term water approvals.

I was curious: what kind of consultation — and if I asked it already, my apologies — went into this change? Or did the government feel no consultation was required because it's basically the same as it is now?

[1345]

Hon. M. Polak: Actually, a lot of thought has been given as to why one would choose, in some circumstances, to grant a short-term water use as opposed to a long-term licence. I would venture to say that those who are concerned about the repeated issuance of permits would be even more concerned if these same interests were able to attain a long-term water right.

I say that because one of the important aspects of managing water is the issue of who has a right to use it, a long-term established right. The member will know from having looked at this legislation that the idea of who has a right to water is all the way through it. First-in-time, first-in-right is one of the most substantial aspects to our water law in British Columbia. So, very important that we maintain the granting of a long-term water right to those circumstances where that would be appropriate.

While these are issued repeatedly, their length of time is limited to 24 months, thus their right to the water is limited to that 24 months, whereas the licences would grant a much longer-term water right.

With respect to the consultation, this particular section of the act doesn't change current practice. It remains the same. There wasn't any direct consultation, as it is current practice as we speak.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I'm sure some people would be concerned about a longer-term right as opposed to a short term. But what I hear from people is more concern that short term provides less information for them in terms of what the applicant provides —what they need, what they're doing, who they are and that kind of thing — as well as less information available to the public in terms of if there is actually water being taken, for what, by who, where, when, how much — a variety of that kind of information.

People are concerned that short-term approvals provide less transparency to the public. Maybe what would help — and this is not an amendment or a legislative change necessarily, but could be — would be if the minister would agree to share the same amount of information on their website that they do when a longer-term right is given. Is that a possibility? That seems to be the main concern I'm hearing from people — that they don't get the information with short-term approvals that they do get with longer-term ones.

[1350]

Hon. M. Polak: The member will be aware, I'm sure, that there are a number of areas where we just don't have the technological capacity that other organizations might. I speak here with respect to short-term water uses that are approved through Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. They are not in a position to be able to post those.

On the other hand, with the Oil and Gas Commission, while they don't post the applications, they do post all the short-term water use permits that are granted. It's worth noting that the statutory decision-maker in the case of OGC — or, indeed, in the case of FLNRO — always has the option to ask for either additional information or to ask for consultation to occur. That is within the discretion of the statutory decision-maker.

I should just take a moment, because I didn't do it before, and just introduce my staff. I have, to my left, Ted White, manager of water strategies and conservation with Ministry of Environment; and on my right, Donna Forsyth, legislative adviser in Ministry of Environment; and behind me, Valerie Cameron, who is manager for water stewardship in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm not sure why the ministry doesn't have the capacity. Is it a funding issue? What's the reason? Technologically, I wouldn't think we couldn't just put it on a website somewhere that people could easily search, given how easy it is to do that kind of stuff these days. What would be the reason why the ministry can't do that?

Hon. M. Polak: It's just a matter of old technology. It's one thing to post something on a website. Certainly, we have the capacity to do that. But one has to gather the information in a way that would make it possible to upload it with some ease. If you are instead in the development of that data, if you're using pen and paper and you're doing this all around the province, it makes it pretty difficult. It's not as simple as simply uploading some data. We're getting there. It's our intent to get there ultimately, but we're not there yet.

S. Chandra Herbert: The Oil and Gas Commission does some of that work. Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations does some. The Ministry of Environment, I guess, also receives information around this.

It just seems to me that it's kind of funny that we've got all these different pockets of information. It would be nice if we were able to understand that we've got one cohesive place to go. If you care about water, this is the place
[ Page 3233 ]
you go to see what the province is doing to the water or is leasing the water or is protecting the water. This is your source. Multiple jurisdictions and multiple responsibilities sometimes lead to no responsibility or sometimes lead to conflicting decisions, unless you have a certain amount of collaboration between the two.

The use approval that's referred to in this section, which can be issued…. Surely, there's an e-mail that goes to somebody who has applied for a short-term water licence where they receive their use approval. Can that be made available on the website at the very least? It's electronic. I'm sure the ministry doesn't use pen and paper anymore to do this. Can we make sure that gets up there?

I'd rather that people know that an application is being made so they have a chance to say if they like it or if they don't. But it seems the ministry is not willing to do that. Can they at least let the public know about the short-term approvals?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm sorry to advise the member that, in fact, people don't receive an e-mail. They actually receive a physical letter.

[1355]

Across the natural resource ministries we are working to try and get to a place where we have things web-based, where we're able to upload data with ease. Our ministries, such as Environment; Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; Energy and Mines — any of the permitting ministries…. It is remarkable the amount of data that passes through our ministries on a day-to-day basis. Currently, with the level of technological support we have, it would just be impossible.

It has nothing to do with willingness. The permits that are approved are public documents. We just don't at this stage have the capacity to post them on line. But they're public documents. We don't keep them secret. As I say, our intent is to get to the place where all of this information, with respect to which permits have been granted, is available to people in a much easier means.

Currently we actually do send a physical letter, not an e-mail.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'll try once more. I understand that you can send a letter, but surely the minister doesn't hand-write the letter. It's probably done on a computer, and that computer has the ability to very quickly attach a file to a website, and it's right there.

Maybe I'm being too cute about it, but I think it should not be difficult. It's not technologically difficult to upload a letter that somebody has been sent. I do it on my own website. I could do it myself, and I'm not very good with computers.

It just seems to me that that would be one simple way to increase transparency — not a massive expenditure to hit "attach" and put it on a website by month. It's really not difficult. I think this is needed and should be something the minister continues to look at but should just do. It's really not difficult.

I'm curious. The issuing of short-term water licences. Some have argued that, well, they're meant for short term and shouldn't be, in a sense, rolled over to become long term just under the short-term name. What would be a reason why somebody would need to roll over a short-term water licence again and again and again where they couldn't possibly go through a longer-term process?

Hon. M. Polak: This really comes down to the purpose for which the water is going to be used.

[1400]

We've spoken about the issue of a long-term water right. In fact, I misspoke to a certain extent when I referenced this earlier. The long-term water right is reviewable after 30 years, but it doesn't end. Assuming that the review is sufficient in terms of the applicant's or the licence holder's bona fides, if they've got everything in place, that is a permanent water right.

Now, one only has to consider the types of activities that take place on the land base to quickly understand that there are very many activities for which one would wish to grant a short-term use of water in order not to be granting a permanent right to that water.

For those who are concerned, for example, with respect to water use in the northeast for hydraulic fracturing, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an individual that would be willing to grant a permanent water right for that activity. So it makes more sense to have a short-term water use permit.

The member is incorrect in saying that these are rolled over. In fact, there's no automatic renewal. The proponent has to reapply. That application is examined anew, and then the statutory decision-maker determines whether or not they grant that.

There are, of course, high-profile activities such as hydraulic fracturing, but there are others that are very low-profile. I think we spoke last time about road dusting, for example. Any use where there is not an interest in the land…. If the proponent does not own an interest in the land, then they would not be able to apply for a long-term licence.

It's also worth noting that there will be more discussion of the discretion and decision-making as we get later into further sections. But I will note for the member at this stage that in section 14 the decision-maker can also make a finding that, in fact, looking at a short-term water use application, this application would be more appropriate as a long-term water licence. That is considered — as to whether or not the application is appropriate to the particular permit or licence.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

On section 12.
[ Page 3234 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: This section as well as a number of others were highlighted by Elizabeth Denham, the Privacy Commissioner, raising some questions around wording — in specific, asking why the government decided to use the term "public personal information" in this section and in many other sections, suggesting that a more common use would be something like publicly available information — concerns that "public personal" was not defined and is not then seen in other acts.

I just wondered if the minister could explain why "public personal information" — that wording — has been used, as opposed to something like "publicly available information."

[1405]

Hon. M. Polak: We did review the comments from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Our view, in the end, is that this is still the best terminology to use.

The rationale is the following. Firstly, being transparent — letting people know right up front that we will be utilizing personal information. "Public" because we will only be using information that is already available in the public domain.

Now, my first question on hearing that was: what on earth would be personal information if it's already public? It is things like your address, for example. That's public information. Someone can drive by your house. It's available, and they can see it. Nevertheless, it's also personal.

So our view is that in order to be absolutely transparent with respect to how we intend to implement the act and what information we will be gathering, we still believe, upon review, that the term "public personal information" is the best term to use.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister explain where public personal information, in a sense, would be applied? Is it too vast to talk about where this would actually be supplied by an individual? You know, what are we thinking about here that you would need to really be clear to somebody that personal information would be available?

I would assume, maybe wrongly, that many people would understand, when communicating with a government, that they would be putting their personal information, their public information, in a sense, out there if they were asking for a water right or if they were doing something involving water and requiring regulation from government.

Why would this be necessary to really make sure that people knew this? What's the concern that we're trying to deal with here by putting "personal" rather than "publicly available"?

Hon. M. Polak: To be clear, not all the personal information that would be collected in this process would be disclosed. It's not necessarily disclosed. Our view of this is that we need to transparently advise people in the legislation that we will be collecting personal information and that it could potentially be disclosed.

Some examples of the collection of that information would be during the application process. If we need to notify existing water licensees if their rights might be impacted, we need to advise them. Of course, some of that information, such as the location of that application, would be personal, if it's your address. Yet, it's public information.

We need to be able to verify the use once a licence has been issued. Of course, if we were to have to develop a water sustainability plan, in the case of water scarcity, again, that would involve the personal information of individuals or others who have water licences in the area or other water uses in the area.

S. Chandra Herbert: Was this change made because of a specific instance, or was it made just because of a desire to do a good job of making sure people knew that personal information could be shared? What made the government decide to make this change?

Hon. M. Polak: There was no specific instance that triggered this in the design of the act. I know the member is aware that it took many years of consultation, and drafting took an awfully long time.

[1410]

Again, it was felt that this was, in our view, the best description of the collection of information in which we'd be engaged in implementation. Nothing particular triggered it.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

S. Chandra Herbert: I've had some folks raise concerns about section 13, saying that they're concerned that this narrows the opportunity for public process, the argument being that the previous Water Act provides process for a riparian owner, licensee or applicant for a licence "who considers that his or her rights would be prejudiced" by the granting of a licence to file an objection and potentially get a hearing.

My understanding is that this process only allows objections to be filed by someone who the government decision-maker has pre-determined may be impacted by the decision. Rather than allowing anybody who thinks that they have a problem with a decision, who is a licensed owner or applicant for a licence, this leaves it up, arguably, for the government to decide who might have a concern and leave out somebody who has a legitimate concern just so that they don't get the right to object. That would be the concern here. Why was this rule brought in
[ Page 3235 ]
or this change brought in? What's the argument for it?

[1415]

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the right to a hearing, there is no change in practice that will occur as a result of this. What has happened, though, is that we have clarified this from the old section in the old Water Act. As is the case today, a person who has a licence then has a right to a hearing; a person who does not have a licence would not have a right to a hearing. They still, in either case, can raise objections. They can do so today, and they will be able to do so after this new act is in place.

The difference is the language here makes it clear that the licensees have a right to be notified and also have a right to a hearing. That is the way we operate today. If you look at the old Water Act, it just really isn't very clear that they actually have a right to that. It's what we have been doing, but they wouldn't be able to point to the legislation currently and show that they have a right.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

S. Chandra Herbert: This section is about environmental flow needs, that environmental flow needs have to be considered in a decision on an application that will affect a given stream or aquifer. The decision-maker can require information from the applicant to make an informed decision as to the environmental flow needs of the stream.

Obviously, this could be very challenging if you are making environmental flow decisions, potentially reducing the amount of water somebody needs for their farm or for their home or for industry. Whatever the case may be, this could be controversial.

Of course, I believe most people would want to make sure that the ecosystems and those species that rely on the water get enough of it. We wouldn't want to leave the environment worse than we found it, although, unfortunately, that seems to be the case right now.

I'm just curious. Who makes the decision around what an environmental flow need is? Is it a peer-reviewed scientific process? Is it ministry staff? Does the public have a chance to make an argument one way or another about what the flow needs are of certain streams or creeks or rivers? How will this be done?

Hon. M. Polak: The statutory decision-maker would rely on the advice of qualified professionals. Usually they are inside the ministry in question — not always.

[1420]

The statutory decision-maker could seek additional information from outside sources if the decision-maker felt that there was more information required — again, completely at their discretion if they wish to seek additional information, additional reports or an additional study.

S. Chandra Herbert: What's the timing for having the environmental flow needs investigated, adequately researched and, I guess, adequately reported to all those that could be impacted? How soon will this actually get going? It is one of the exciting aspects of this bill, but many have wondered whether or not it'll have real teeth or if it'll ever get done, given the challenges for resources in the ministry. So just a timeline would be useful.

Hon. M. Polak: The policy is actually in place now. However, as the member will know, one needs to put in place the appropriate legislative authority, and that's what takes place here. But it's already begun. Staff have already been working with that policy and, indeed, considering environmental flow needs in their decisions.

S. Chandra Herbert: There are a lot of streams, a lot of rivers, creeks and lakes in this province. It will take some time, I think, to do the appropriate science and the appropriate due diligence for environmental flow needs for a number of streams and rivers. In one lower section you may have very different needs than you do further up the creek or stream, based on what kind of flow from mountains or other areas into a river or a stream.

The policy's in place. What percentage of B.C.'s rivers, streams, creeks does the ministry believe they have adequate data on to decide environmental flow needs, to have the hard numbers in place for?

Hon. M. Polak: It really depends on the individual application and the individual circumstances of that body of water, be it a stream or be it an aquifer or what have you.

The statutory decision-maker would look at the information available. They may decide that with respect to that application in front of them, there is already sufficient information. They may not. It may be a situation where they need to ask for additional assessment.

It isn't, though, always the ministry that will conduct that assessment. It doesn't entirely rely on the staffing levels that we have available. In many cases proponents can employ qualified professionals as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, the qualified professionals. I had the good fortune of meeting many of them the other day, speaking with the Association of Professional Biology — a very good discussion and also, of course, reflecting on the Ombudsperson's recent report into riparian area regulations and the challenge when 15 to 20 percent of the reports actually provided by those professionals are read, leaving 80 to 85 percent of them unread. There were some interesting conversations there.

I think the challenge with this section of environmental flow needs is making sure that we actually are
[ Page 3236 ]
adequately taking them into consideration and that the real work has actually been done. Would it be a requirement for any new application that environmental flow needs have to be considered, that a report has to be created? Would that report be available to the public should they ask for it?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, in fact environmental flow needs will be a requirement for consideration, and the reasons for decision are always public.

[1425]

S. Chandra Herbert: So environmental flow needs will have to be considered. I guess the question is considered…. You could consider it and still say: "Well, forget it. It doesn't really matter."

Is that a risk? Or is it a requirement that the environmental flow needs have to be actually part of the decision, that you're not allowed to make a decision which would disregard environmental flow needs and that you have to include them in how a decision is designed?

Then the follow-up is: can that report on environmental flow needs be made publicly available, as opposed to just a decision — "We agreed to give somebody a licence" — to actually give them the data if they want it?

Hon. M. Polak: The report would be available. I didn't mean to sound obtuse with saying "the reasons for decision." The report would be part of the reasons for decision, so it would be available.

With respect to considerations for a statutory decision-maker, that is the very nature of the statutory decision-maker framework. Legislation, sometimes regulation, provides them with a list of things that they may or must consider. It is then up to the statutory decision-maker what weight they give to various considerations toward their decision.

That is the nature of that process. If it were not the case, then we would not have a statutory decision-maker who is engaged in that. You would have a different process.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for ensuring that information, that report, would be publicly available. I hope she means not publicly available in the sense that you have to go to FOI and apply and wait for months. She's meaning that if somebody asked, the minister would give it to them. Is that correct? I see her head nodding. We'll make sure that the community knows that — and it's nodding in approval, not nodding in opposition to the idea.

I think the challenge here is that…. The minister knows that somebody — and it's happened before — could come forward, hire a qualified professional to do the work. Most qualified professionals do the work in the best way possible with their best knowledge. However, some may — and in the past they have — sometimes produce work that is really not as good as it should be, that may look a little more favourably towards a company's interests as opposed to a public interest in terms of protecting fish or other things.

That does happen. Sometimes people feel pressured to do good by their employer, even if that slams up against their personal ethical conduct and code.

What percentage of these reports will be read? Will they all be read by the ministry, these environmental flow reports, and considered?

Hon. M. Polak: Because it's an application process that must be adjudicated, each and every one would be read and reviewed.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, one more question on this just because it is such an important section and, of course, flows through — there; another water allusion — the rest of the act.

I guess the staff that the ministry supplies to do this work or the qualified professional that does this work, because it's not always one or the other…. What kind of requirements are made in terms of qualifications? In terms of: does it have to be a biologist? Could it be somebody who works for a company that has a biologist?

You know, we want to make sure that top-quality science is used in this and by qualified people. I just want to make sure that we are, in fact, getting the reports from the best of the best. So the qualifications of those that would provide such reports would be useful.

Hon. M. Polak: We do have the regulatory authority to designate which professionals would be engaged in that, and so it will not show up specified in the act, but certainly, as is practice amongst all the ministries that receive reports from qualified professionals, we certainly ensure that the right professional is attached to the right type of analysis and reporting.

[1430]

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

On section 17.

S. Chandra Herbert: This allows cabinet to designate some streams, through regulation, as sensitive streams, introducing additional and more stringent rules related to environmental flows. I wonder: do we currently have sensitive streams designated? How many? And what kinds of more stringent rules related to environmental flows could be brought in?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: The Water Sustainability Act brings together a number of other acts. This is one of those oc-
[ Page 3237 ]
casions. This language is from the Fish Protection Act, updated to a certain extent. It's the same effect as what is currently in the Fish Protection Act.

S. Chandra Herbert: I support this. I think this makes sense. I think that the challenge is long term. If we're going to do things like consider compensatory mitigation measures if a stream has some impact somewhere else, it is making sure that the stream actually long term does become healthy again — if there was some sort of damage and mitigation was required — so that the fish health and number of fish or aquatic species actually come back to the same rate they were at before.

The Ombudsperson's report made it pretty clear, as other biologists and others have pointed out, that sometimes you can do your best. You can say: "Here we have our plan. We've done it. We put it in place." But things change. Budget priorities change. Ministers change. Governments change. People retire. Five years down the road the follow-up work may not be done. Ten years down the road the follow-up work may not be done.

Sometimes compensatory mitigation measures, while they look good at the start, do not actually adequately mitigate damage to a sensitive stream which may have had some issues due to human impact or industrial impact, whatever they may be. What's the process for designating sensitive streams, and how do we ensure long term that compensatory mitigation measures are actually compensatory, as opposed to negative, in terms of the health of an aquatic ecosystem?

[1435]

Hon. M. Polak: I'll deal with the proactive, the listing of sensitive streams. The process whereby streams are deemed as sensitive is outlined in the sensitive stream regulation, which is alive under the Fish Protection Act. As we develop the regulations for the Water Sustainability Act, we will be updating those regulations to reflect the same as you would have seen in the Fish Protection Act.

In terms of what ensures that the damage that is contemplated, I guess, when the application is adjudicated, that it actually is consistent with what we see happening, ultimately, it would be part of the terms and conditions of the licence. That gives us the authority to….

If the terms and conditions are not met, we can make orders, cancel a licence, suspend a licence. We certainly have adequate authority to be able to enforce the conditions that would be put in place for a licence. But if there are concerns when a licence is granted, then those conditions are put in place by the statutory decision-maker at the time of the granting.

S. Chandra Herbert: I realize that some of these questions could have been asked in section 16, not just section 17, but I appreciate the minister's latitude.

Compensatory mitigation. It's an interesting argument. It's an interesting thought — the idea that maybe you draw a lot of water from one area, which maybe drops that section of the stream or the river, and in an effort to try and mitigate the damage, maybe you add a bunch more water further down the watercourse. Maybe that's too elementary, but I'm just trying to visualize what this could look like.

We humans have an interesting way of assuming that we know how to change nature in a way that will benefit nature or that we totally and fully understand the natural systems that we like to play with and that we rely on. History, of course, has shown us that sometimes we get it right. Sometimes we get it disastrously wrong and clearly don't understand the natural systems because they're too complicated for our big brains. It's something that I think we need to approach with caution.

Certainly, I understand in the legislation that the idea is if there is an equivalent water source "reasonably available" to the applicant, that the application relating to the sensitive stream could be rejected. What would be "reasonably available to an applicant"? Of course, some will say: "Well, it's right next to me. This is as reasonable as you can get." But that would damage, maybe, a fish-bearing stream, whereas you have to spend a chunk of money to get water from somewhere else. They may say: "That's completely unreasonable."

What's the guiding line here? If it's a sensitive stream, I think we need to protect it as a sensitive stream and not rely on compensatory mitigation.

[1440]

As we've seen within B.C., some of our best-laid plans have been shown to be massive failures down the road, and while we can say the conditions were not met, if the fish are gone, the fish are gone. If the stream is damaged, it may cost a lot of money to bring it back to health even if we have those conditions because, of course, those should be the last-ditch efforts, not the first line of defence.

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the first part of the member's commentary, he's absolutely right. We don't know with any certainty when we grant a licence that things will unfold in the ways that have been predicted, even by eminently qualified professionals. That's one of the reasons the act is structured in this way — to provide for that ability to respond in the case of changing circumstances.

With respect to the determination that the statutory decision-maker will have to arrive at in terms of the proximity of a stream, there will be policy guidance developed in the regulations. Certainly, that will be needed. Ultimately, though, it still will be at the discretion of the statutory
[ Page 3238 ]
decision-maker, looking at the individual circumstances and of course looking to the science to, hopefully, show with some clarity what the impacts would be and be able to predict them with some degree of reliability there. It is, though, the discretion of the statutory decision-maker, and as I say, policy guidance will be developed in the regulations.

S. Chandra Herbert: For sensitive stream mitigation and for environmental flow needs, those kinds of things, when somebody applies — again, similar to my earlier question — if it is an application to use a sensitive stream and the statutory decision-maker decides that there is not an equivalent water source reasonably available and instead allows the use of the sensitive stream, I'm assuming that approval would also be included in the water licence that becomes public on the ministry website so we get an understanding that this is a sensitive stream that's involved. What level of detail is provided?

[1445]

Hon. M. Polak: It wouldn't be specified or outlined in the licence itself. It would be available information in the rationale for the decision.

S. Chandra Herbert: How many staff members are currently involved in doing sensitive stream mitigation discussions within the ministry versus qualified professionals outside? A rough approximation would be useful.

Hon. M. Polak: It doesn't happen very often. Because the process is quite onerous when one wishes to draw from a sensitive stream, people tend to avoid them. To give you an example, the lovely Valerie behind me has been doing this since 1989. She's never had to review an application on a sensitive stream. It doesn't happen very often.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess this is creating a process for something that happens rarely but is still important, I think, to have in place.

When we talk about the information required from an applicant if they were to do something like this…. Really, there's a range of things in the act which you would either expect, I guess, a ministry staffer, scientists or a qualified professional…. What is the minister's definition of a qualified professional? I know there's been some concern from professional biologists, technologists, science technologists and others that it's not adequately addressed in the bill, and they're concerned that they could potentially be, I think, cut out of this work, as it's not explicit.

Hon. M. Polak: Not with any hint of trying to be difficult but actually trying to help move us along, we might be better discussing that in section 48.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

S. Chandra Herbert: In the interests of moving us along, I'll ask another question. This is around quick licensing procedures. West Coast Environmental Law has actually raised some concerns around this, arguing that it narrows the opportunity for public process, their argument being that basically this change makes it so these quick licences cannot be appealable to the Environmental Appeal Board.

I just want to understand why. Certainly, we all know that people can make mistakes, and having an appeal process seems to me, at least on the surface here, to be a good thing and not something that the government should be considering taking away from the public.

[1450]

Hon. M. Polak: Firstly, the appeal provision or lack thereof is not a change. That exists in the current Water Act. Secondly, this is, of course, to do with low-risk applications where we know that there's an awful lot of water available and that the particular activity is…. It's fairly straightforward that it will not have a negative impact. For example, an application to irrigate that draws from the Fraser River. A Fraser Valley farmer wishes to draw some water from the Fraser River for irrigation. It would not need the same kind of rigour as on a very small stream that's heavily used by others for a large allocation.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

S. Chandra Herbert: This relates to licences for power purposes. I understand my colleague may have a question on this, so I wanted to give her that opportunity.

C. Trevena: I didn't stand up because I'm not sure whether it's this section or section 22 that I need to be asking the minister questions about. It's with a specific power project in mind. It's the Synex project up in Tahsis on McKelvie Creek.

There has been some concern by the village — in fact, quite a lot of concern by the village — about the impact that power project has on their drinking water, their drinking water supply and the ability for them to continue to access their drinking water. They've had problems of turbidity, they've had a number of boil-water advisories, and they are looking at the long term, the impacts it's going to have on their drinking water.

I'm not sure whether that would be a question for this section or a question for section 22, so that's why my hesitancy in standing up.

[1455]

Hon. M. Polak: It may or may not be better in this section or section 22. Here's where we get into the distinction between the amount of water and the quality of the water. The terms and conditions for a licensee who has a
[ Page 3239 ]
dam, a reservoir, would entail descriptions of how high, low, how often they release, all those kinds of things — so the amount of water.

The quality of the water, though, would actually be a matter for the Ministry of Health under the Drinking Water Protection Act. Typically, the only available response to that is treatment of some kind. Again, it wouldn't be under our terms and conditions under the Water Act. It would be under the Drinking Water Protection Act.

I'm told that it is fairly common, unfortunately, with almost all reservoirs, including those that we're familiar with, or I am, on the Lower Mainland, etc.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that. As I say, I'm a little hesitant to press on this, because, again, whether it is even ministry…. But since you have somebody from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, I will press the point.

We have a village that is going to have a run of the river above the village. It's using the village's watershed. The village is very concerned about that. The village has always had access to that water. Now it's going to be used by an independent power project. The independent power project hasn't actually started yet.

Who has the rights there for making sure that there is going to be both adequate and good-quality water and that the quantity of water for the village is not going to be disturbed, as well as the quality? I understand what the minister says about going through the Ministry of Health.

[1500]

Hon. M. Polak: While the Water Sustainability Act doesn't directly deal with drinking water quality, nevertheless, even now, with respect to Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, their statutory decision-makers must consider the potential impact on downstream water users from any project. So they would take into account any potential negative impact on the drinking water for the community.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. Again, whether it's this section, whether it's even the right minister at the moment to be proceeding with this…. I'll understand if the minister says that she's gone as far as she can in assisting on this.

We have this IPP that is proceeding. The community has gone to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. They've tried to raise it in various ways because of their serious concerns. Most recently I think it was a letter last month. In that, their view is basically that because it's an independent power project, they have no ability to raise their concerns or be heard.

Their culmination…. It's a very strong letter from the chief administrative officer. They describe it as an interesting case as to how far the province will go and who will be compromised for a six-megawatt independent power project, and it appears the province has predetermined the project will proceed no matter what consequences and to whom — whether that leaves them with unsafe water for the village.

Again, we've got the opportunity here, through the Water Sustainability Act, to try and prevent problems like this coming up in the future as well as to try and untangle problems that we already have, as I read some of the sections of this act. How could we be using what we have in front of us to try and untangle some of the mess that is happening in this one community? If it's happening in this community, it may be happening in others. So just how to unravel the problems that they are obviously facing.

[1505]

Hon. M. Polak: It's difficult to speak about an individual project, I'm sure the member can appreciate. Generally speaking, every licence will have attached to it terms and conditions. In the case of IPPs, they typically are fairly large licences with an awful lot of terms and conditions.

In the case where an operator was not in compliance with those terms and conditions and, as a result, there were then negative consequences to downstream water users, to drinking water health, that would be an enforcement issue for us with respect to their licence. However, if they were operating according to the terms and conditions but for some other reason there were issues, then we get into the issue of water quality — Drinking Water Protection Act. Then, of course, much of that relies on the body that is providing the water, the water provider.

It is, though, probably worth noting, although it doesn't come up until section 43…. This is one of the reasons that the water objectives become important, because it allows a bit of a broader set of — I don't want to say "authorities," but — guidance, I guess, if you will, or enables a broader set of authorities than we have currently available to us. That also could be a piece to this.

Again, it's very difficult to talk about an individual project, but generally speaking, those would be the facets of this that would come into play.

G. Holman: We've been discussing up to now, for the most part, the process for the original application and terms and conditions — that kind of thing. Let's say, in the case of a power project, you've got a 40-year licence that's been granted and there is an assessment evaluation of environmental flows, other issues, possibly impacts on other licence users like communities with drinking water requirements, that kind of thing. So there's an initial assessment done.

Then a few years into the licence — or maybe more, due to climate change, other factors — all of a sudden the circumstances have changed. The flow regime in that
[ Page 3240 ]
stream, if changed…. What ability, if any, is there for the province to evaluate changing circumstances and change the licence accordingly — in both the case of private power producers or any power producer and even other longer-term licences? What's the ability of the province to adjust the licence requirements, terms and conditions to changing circumstances?

Hon. M. Polak: In the case where it turns out that in spite of operating in line with the terms and conditions, nevertheless, the negative consequences are still occurring, then we have the authority to amend that licence.

[1510]

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

S. Chandra Herbert: This is about the precedence of rights: determining under the FITFIR regime, the first-in-time, first-in-right regime, I think, who has the first right to water should there be a reduction in the amount of water allowed to be used for a variety of issues. It could be environmental, climate change. It could be because there are more users and there has just been less rain at that time of year, I suppose.

I'm curious how the list of who has the rights to water, the list determining that we have domestic on top as the first use to be protected, waterworks, irrigation, mineralized water, mining, industrial, oil and gas, power, storage, conservation, land improvement, in that order…. Who determines that ordering of precedence in rights?

Hon. M. Polak: It's essentially the same as the old Water Act. Two differences: oil and gas used to be captured within the term "industrial," and instead we've put it below industrial in precedence. Then in terms of irrigation and mineralized water, the Water Act had some rather ancient terminology to describe those, and so those are simply modern language. And we switched the order.

Mineralized water used to be called mineral trading water or something like that. It was a very old term. That used to be ahead of irrigation, and now irrigation is ahead. I apologize. We switched the order there as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm just curious. I know there are certain provisions to bring in environmental flow protections, should that be required over and above, which would overrule the water purpose ranking. It's my understanding in reading this section that should there be that need, then you could overrule the ranking, of course, with essential household use being still a possibility.

In the list of ranking we have kind of a lowest priority, so to speak, I guess. The lowest rank was land improvement, but the next one up is conservation. What kind of thinking goes into a conservation designation? What kinds of uses would fall under conservation?

Certainly, with a Water Sustainability Act, the first thought would be, "Well, conservation should be a top priority" — not near the bottom. Of course, I'm conflating the two, but one would question why conservation takes such a low ranking in this ranking system.

Hon. M. Polak: First, to be clear, the order of precedence doesn't kick in unless there is a circumstance where it is the same stream and the licences were granted at the same time, right? The order of precedence doesn't kick in unless that circumstance arises.

[1515]

I'll agree here. It is rather confusing when normal people who don't live in the world of legislation, like us, read this initially. The first reaction is: "Oh my goodness, how could conservation be so low on the list?"

The important piece to remember is that this isn't just conservation generally. As you'll see throughout the act, there are lots of places where conservation takes precedence over virtually everything else. This is water that would be used for a conservation purpose — so diverting water to flood a wetland, for example, or create a wetland, diverting water to create a salmon hatchery, right?

There have to be works involved. It isn't a matter of conservation itself being low on the priority, but in terms of works that would be installed, water that would be diverted for a purpose, then conservation arrives at this precedence level.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I understand. They have to have applied at the same time and be in there in equal parts, I guess, for FITFIR, in some sense. How many times has this kind of a section of legislation been used under the current act?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm sure, as the member will appreciate, the chances of having licences conflict in this way — very, very rare. In fact, we don't have even an example to give to you of when this section has been employed. But of course it is conceivable, and so we must cover it off in the legislation.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, this is similar in some respects to the question around hydroelectric projects, dams, around the terms of a licence, with a 30-year review of licence terms and conditions being the decision, except for power purposes.

Why 30 years? Some have said 20 years would be adequate. Some have said at 30 years you should have the right to tell the person, "Well no, we don't want to continue," for a variety of reasons. Rather than just reviewing
[ Page 3241 ]
the licence terms and conditions, make it a real open decision point. I understand maybe for financing reasons that that's not what the government has decided to do. But why 30 years?

Hon. M. Polak: The member will know that in the old Water Act there was no review period whatsoever. I suppose, at whichever point you place this, some people will be dissatisfied with it.

On balance, based on the years of consultation and work with different organizations — be they agricultural, industrial — 30 years, we felt, provided for the right balance between our ability to manage the resource and at the same time provide certainty to those who have the water licences. Again, I'm certain that whatever number we chose, there would be people who would be dissatisfied.

It's important to note that in the case of this 30-year review, it's the review of a permanent licence. In the case of the hydroelectric projects, of course, the term of the licence ends at 40 years, and then there must be a new licence granted.

S. Chandra Herbert: In 30 years much can change in a landscape. It says that there will be a review required. Is that a full review with environmental flow needs being researched and maybe the hydrology of the area looked at? I ask because I know that sometimes, with the best of intentions, we set up these processes, but the work is not always updated.

[1520]

It's slightly different, but I was looking into floodplain mapping the other day. Of course, our friends in the real estate industry have raised that issue and mentioned that it had been really probably 20 or 30 years since many of the floodplain maps have been updated, which clearly is not adequate in a changing climate.

Even if we didn't have the spectre of climate change on top of us now, the land changes. Erosion happens. And I just want to make sure that there is a fulsome review under this and that a future government…. While the minister may be very fit and lively, I don't imagine she'll be the minister in 30 years. That may be her dream. I'm not sure. However, she may not be. It may not be her choice at some point. So I just want to make sure that there are adequate protections in here so that a future government, hopefully, in 30 years' time will actually have to make sure that the science is done again.

Hon. M. Polak: There will be regulatory guidance for the statutory decision-maker, but it is at the discretion of the statutory decision-maker with respect to the scope of the review. The reason for that being…. Just as there's a wide variety of different licences requiring different levels of scrutiny, so too the review of those licences would require varying levels of scrutiny. But we will be providing regulatory guidance as we develop the implementation of the act.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm curious. Under subsection 6 — I guess it would be — it discusses that the decision-maker may review the terms and conditions of a licence, taking into account things like the best available technology and best practices in respect to water use efficiency and so forth.

Why did the minister decide that they should say the decision-maker "may" review the terms and conditions of a licence rather than "will" review the terms and conditions of a licence? One is, of course, much stronger and the other gives a decision-maker the decision to not look into the licence at all and just say, "Sure, continue going forth," which, of course, could lead to bad environmental decisions.

Hon. M. Polak: It's enabling — again, back to the statutory decision-maker model. The way that we manage that in legislation, not just this but other legislation, is by enabling that statutory decision-maker to have discretion to make those decisions. For example, we've discussed the very different nature of different licences here. Some are very, very simple, very straightforward, and the information is obvious. It may not require a full-on review of the terms and conditions. Again — over to the discretion of the statutory decision-maker.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess this is where I come in and say: "Well, I think the public would like to know that there was really going to be a review, particularly after 30 years." I don't know what circumstance would exist — maybe the minister could illustrate one for me — where if we issued a water licence today, a long-term one for 30 years, we wouldn't want to review the terms and conditions down the road because environmental factors do change, just as demand factors do as well.

Is there an example the minister could provide where we wouldn't review the terms and conditions of a licence, taking into account the factors outlined here?

[1525]

Hon. M. Polak: A good example would be a very small irrigation licence from a very large source. The risk involved in that is very small.

It, in a sense, mirrors what we decided in terms of groundwater use for the purpose of regular domestic household use. People ask: "Well, why didn't you include that in terms of the licensing?" The answer is because the effort to be put into taking into account every single domestic well would have very, very minimal environmental benefit and yet would take a tremendous amount of effort.

So, too, when we look at how a statutory decision-maker will approach a review. In the case of a very small
[ Page 3242 ]
irrigation licence from a very large water source, it's quite…. I don't want to prejudge the statutory decision-maker, but in a rational world there's every likelihood that the statutory decision-maker would say: "Well, I'm not going to spend time on that one. The one I want to look at is this ancient, large irrigation allocation that I know is on a very small water source, and it's over-allocated in the area. I want to really get into that one and maybe amend some terms and conditions."

There are cases where the risk is so low it just really isn't worth the review time that is taken from others that would be of higher risk.

S. Chandra Herbert: I can accept that. I understand that. I think the risk, of course, is that a government — and some would argue this government — has reduced environmental protections and scientists and others to such a degree — maybe we have an economic recession, maybe we have some challenges — where a government of the day could decide to drastically reduce the staff in the Ministry of Environment and in Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, etc., in such a way that the statutory decision-maker doesn't really have the people to do the work. And so it reduces the class of projects which have to be reviewed to such a small number that, potentially, projects which do have bad impacts or do have potentially challenging impacts to the environment are let go through just because of lack of resources or lack of staffing.

I think that's the concern with this section. I understand the need to leave a certain amount of flexibility. I guess I wonder: did the ministry ever consider…? Or is the policy written in such a way to class projects in different degrees of risk so that when these projects come up for review, it's simple to know which ones are going to have to be looked at first? Or is it really on a first-come, first-served basis?

[1530]

Hon. M. Polak: I appreciate what the member said with respect to the important role that scientists and independent decision-makers play in our government structure. In fact, this is providing the ultimate of independence. Statutory decision-making and independent statutory decision-making cuts both ways.

Not only do you want to provide them with as much independence as possible, but in providing them that independence, you are accepting the fact that they will use their discretion — not ours — in terms of the choices they make.

There will be regulatory guidance. Whether or not it uses categories or describes conditions for consideration — that will be left up to those who are the professionals to design something that's workable. I will venture to say, though, that based on the history of what has occurred in the various permitting ministries, if — God forbid — there was a sudden and dramatic slashing of staff in the ministry that was responsible, chances are it wouldn't result in projects or licences not being reviewed if there was a problem with them.

In all likelihood, based on what we've seen in previous experience, it would likely result in significant delays. But I believe, based on their professional qualifications and responsibilities, they certainly wouldn't overlook the review of a licence that was proving to be problematic.

Sections 23 to 29 inclusive approved.

On section 30.

S. Chandra Herbert: Beneficial use of water. We had a bit of discussion around "beneficial use" and public trust — those kinds of issues — when this bill debate began. So the idea is that beneficial use requires you to use it in a way, I guess, that is beneficial to the public — the idea of keeping it an efficient use of the public, for the public.

I'll give the minister some time. I see my colleague from Surrey-Panorama is creating some more havoc in this House, so I will let him be seated. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena, as well, gesticulating quite wildly, having a wonderful time as we discuss water. I'm glad to see it. Beneficial use of water is something that I would encourage for him as well. It will reduce the gesticulations, perhaps.

If the minister could explain the thinking behind "beneficial use". What legal thinking has this drawn from, and what benefits, in terms of water efficiency, does the ministry hope to achieve with it?

[1535]

Hon. M. Polak: There was a section in the previous Water Act. What we sought to do here is to clarify by defining "beneficial use" so that it is clear what we are getting at is that we don't want to see waste of water. We have also, then, expanded the responsibility so it's not just the licensee but any water user.

S. Chandra Herbert: Obviously, if we're going to determine "beneficial use," we need to have some understanding of what is not a beneficial use, what is wasteful use of water. Is the ministry developing some sorts of guidelines in the sense of, let's say, domestic or agricultural use? What would be expected in terms of — I don't know; maybe this is getting far too technical for me — a certain number of millilitres or gallons or litres used per bushel of hay or something?

I'll just throw that out. I come from a hay-farming family, although far from that farming family, as is probably evidenced by my lack of knowledge of those terms.

How are we going to determine a real beneficial use and get it from just being an understanding on paper to one that actually has real meaning and one that people
[ Page 3243 ]
can live up to? Being told that you need to sign a declaration that you will use it efficiently may mean something very different to different people. A neighbour of mine once argued to me that it was much more efficient to use the hose to wash off their driveway than to use a broom. It may have been more efficient for them in terms of their muscle use, but it certainly wasn't in terms of use of water.

Hon. M. Polak: There will be regulatory guidance that will be developed in order for there to be a clear understanding of what "beneficial use" might look like. It's important to note that while there is a conservation aspect to this, that doesn't tell the whole story. Part of beneficial use that we think is extremely important is that the allocation and the use match what would be happening every day with this particular licence.

[1540]

We want to not only ensure that people aren't wasting water generally, but in terms of a licensee…. For the sake of argument, if a licensee applied for…. We want to deter someone from applying for a licence for an allocation that is far beyond what they're going to need just so that they have it there just in case.

We want to know that they're using their allocated amount in the way in which the licence was granted to them to use. It goes beyond even just straight conservation and into efficient use of the water. We want to ensure that for irrigation purposes they don't have leaky pipes, things like that.

S. Chandra Herbert: Maybe this will be determined in regulation, but I guess the concern is, of course, that if we're talking about "beneficial use" and saying, "You should use what we give you," people will then decide to use it all up so it doesn't get taken back, as sometimes happens in the month of March in certain ministry departments as well.

I'm just curious. How are we going to make sure that we actually are seeing beneficial use — that it's not 30 years down the road that we're reflecting on these licences and saying: "Well, you didn't really beneficially use it in years 17 and 21"? What's the process going to be like?

It's a great theory. It's a great thought. Given that B.C. and Canada and North America were some of the highest per-capita water users in all of the world, we do need to drive that down and make sure that we efficiently use it rather than waste it. But how are we actually going to see that, and when do we know that it's actually working?

Hon. M. Polak: There are two pieces to that. It comes into play during the adjudication of the initial application. It's not just: "Is there room to grant you this much water?" You're also looking at the use to which you're going to put the water. Does it match with the amount you're asking for?

In adjudicating that licence, if it was irrigation, for example, the statutory decision-maker would look at: "Just what is the acreage you're planning to irrigate, and what method are you using?" Then it would be very obvious if the person was asking for an amount that's far beyond what their needs might be.

The second piece that comes into play, of course, is with respect to the review of a licence after the 30-year period. Certainly, if there are complaints that a licensee is using water inappropriately, then that could also be looked into at the time.

S. Chandra Herbert: Will there be spot compliance — you know, limited enforcement mechanisms where ministry staff could go and check on people? Will they respond to complaints prior to the 30-year cutoff and bring in corrective action at that point?

Hon. M. Polak: There is a variety of ways that this happens. Now, first of all, to be clear, the declaration that's mentioned in the section — we don't have to wait for the 30 years to do that. That can happen at any time when there's a concern. You can appreciate, with the size of the province and the vast number of individual and industry users now — especially now that we are including groundwater as well — it becomes a bit like policing.

On a broad level, in terms of policing, we don't have individual police officers following us around, right? They respond to complaints. Sometimes they investigate something suspicious. Similarly, we operate on that basis — obviously, paying more and closer attention to those licences that are higher risk and where there's a greater sensitivity in terms of impact. But now through this we have the powers, though, to act at any point when we have a concern.

[1545]

S. Chandra Herbert: If somebody were watching this and decided they had a complaint, that a neighbour or somebody else was not acting appropriately with water, with the changes in this act — of course, we're talking about the current act, but should this act pass — what would they do? Would they e-mail the minister? Is there a water hotline — 1-800-water?

How do they actually make a complaint? Most people, I think, probably would not know what to do — maybe would talk to the local government. But they wouldn't call 911, I doubt. How would this work?

Hon. M. Polak: That's correct. We do not want people dialling 911 in the event of a water concern, no matter how passionate they may feel about water. It's not that kind of an emergency.

The system works like this. They would call the RAPP line. It's the Report All Poachers and Polluters. They would call that line, and a natural resource officer would be dispatched. They have full powers currently under the
[ Page 3244 ]
Water Act, and they will continue to have those powers under the Water Sustainability Act.

S. Chandra Herbert: My next question will be on section 43, just to give that indication to the Chair.

Sections 30 to 42 inclusive approved.

On section 43.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Chair. Well done. It's hard work to be in that chair there. Got to keep him on his toes.

N. Simons: He's got to stay awake.

S. Chandra Herbert: "He's got to stay awake," my colleague says. I apologize. Have a glass of water. It'll wake you up. You don't have to drink it. Anyways….

Water objectives. It allows cabinet to create water objectives by regulation, which government decision-makers must consider. The intent is to protect water quality and/or quantity for specific water uses or to protect aquatic ecosystems. It's a great idea.

Again, similar to earlier questions, who creates the water objectives? Are these things shared publicly? Is it a cabinet document? Certainly, there would be a lot of people who have different objectives for water — of course, the first being making sure it's there in a healthy form for the future. How are these designed, and what are they looking to actually do?

Hon. M. Polak: This is an enabling piece, and yes, the regulations, once developed, would be public. It is left with the flexibility to develop regulations over time that may reflect circumstances that we wouldn't be able to foresee at this point, and so, again, it's left fairly broad. But it is intended to be enabling, and yes, that would be public.

[1550]

S. Chandra Herbert: This could be a very powerful part of the act. It could make a real difference, or it could sit on a shelf. My question would be: what's the first water objective the ministry is looking to enact this year?

Hon. M. Polak: Some areas that we are currently interested in pursuing and that staff have been giving some thought to: qualitative statements for water quantity, quality, aquatic ecosystem health — for example, water quantity that's sustainable and applicable to surface water and groundwater, water quality that's suitable for its designated use, aquatic ecosystems that are healthy. These are topic areas that staff are already spending some time thinking about. I'm sure there will be others that arise as well.

Sections 43 and 44 approved.

The Chair: Shall section 45 pass? So ordered. Shall section 46…?

S. Chandra Herbert: Hon. Chair, on 45.

The Chair: On section 45.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you. The river was starting to really flow there, but I put up a dam.

The Chair: I know. You have to be fast.

On section 45.

S. Chandra Herbert: This section is "No new dams on protected rivers." Maybe that means I should sit down.

I want to ask about this section. It talks about protected rivers. What are the current protected rivers in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Polak: There's a schedule at the end. I'll read them here: "Adams River, Alsek River, Babine River, Bell-Irving River, Clearwater River, Fraser River, Nass River, Skagit River, Skeena River, Stikine River, Stuart River, Taku River, Tatshenshini River, Thompson River, North Thompson River and South Thompson River, West Road River, commonly known as Blackwater River." This list is from the Fish Protection Act.

Section 45 approved.

On section 46.

S. Chandra Herbert: "Prohibition on introducing foreign matter into stream" is this section. What are the penalties should somebody introduce a foreign matter into a stream, and how many tickets or enforcement orders has the ministry issued, let's say in the last year, in relation to this and 47, I suppose?

Hon. M. Polak: Standard with any legislation like this, it could be an administrative penalty. It could be a fine. That will be developed after the legislation, hopefully, passes.

S. Chandra Herbert: I don't imagine this is what the minister meant, but it could be, I suppose. Is there no penalty or fine or administrative penalty currently for introducing foreign matter into a stream?

[1555]

Hon. M. Polak: Okay, I'll see if I can outline this clearly. Two things. It currently is an offence under the Water Act to introduce matter into the stream. However, it's only an
[ Page 3245 ]
offence after you've been ordered by an engineer not to do it. So we're improving that circumstance, okay?

There was a provision under the Fish Protection Act, a penalty provision, but it was never in force.

S. Chandra Herbert: My goodness. My goodness. So introducing "debris, refuse, carcasses, human or animal waste, pesticides, fertilizers, contaminants or another matter or substance into a stream, a stream channel or an area adjacent to a stream" is not currently not allowed. Well, you're currently allowed to do it unless somebody says: "Hey, maybe you shouldn't do that."

I guess we need a lot of "Hey, you shouldn't do that" kinds of guys stationed on rivers and streams all over the province right now, because that's crazy. I don't understand it. I don't understand how it went on this long, but I guess with an act over 100 years old, things like that were introduced at odd times and with odd results, as we see here.

I'm glad we are bringing in changes and the ministry is considering what sorts of administrative penalties or other ways that we could address this are. I understand there's more work to be done on this. How quickly can we get this changed? This is wrong.

Hon. M. Polak: I don't want to leave the impression that people currently can stand at the sides of rivers and hurl whatever objectionable material they wish into them. While we're very proud of the Water Sustainability Act and its improvements, it is not the only restriction with respect to pollution. We of course have the Environmental Management Act, and that would prohibit the hurling of objectionable material into the rivers and streams.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I'm glad there is at least some protection from hurling things into rivers and streams. Can I get some explanation in terms of…? If we have protection under the Environmental Management Act to stop people from doing that, why is this protection required? What's the gap here we're trying to fill? It at one point sounded pretty darn wide; at the other it sounded like maybe it's not a problem at all. If I could get some clarity on what's going on here, that'd be great.

Hon. M. Polak: The difference between how the Environmental Management Act would work versus the Water Sustainability Act provisions is that in the case of WSA one wouldn't have to prove that they have actually caused pollution, whereas under the Environmental Management Act that's one of the elements involved.

S. Chandra Herbert: I see. So somebody right now could throw a body into a lake or a stream, and if you couldn't prove it actually polluted the water body, well, then no problem. You're having a good time. That is pretty wild, and I'm glad that we are looking to change that. Wow.

I thank the minister and her staff for bringing in this change. But for those watching at home, don't get any wise ideas between now and the time this legislation passes, because we don't want you throwing things into lakes or streams.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: All three of those people have learned their lesson, and they won't do that anymore.

Yes, I don't have any further questions on this. Hopefully, this will happen quickly. The minister would, I'm sure, be pleased to do that too, and we can get to enforcing this, since you can't enforce something that doesn't currently exist, as I wrongly thought it did.

Section 46 approved.

On section 47.

S. Chandra Herbert: Remediation orders in relation to foreign matter in a stream. So if that body got thrown into the creek or the river, I'm understanding that this section is to allow the government to say: "Well, you've got to fix this, and we will charge you to clean things up." Is that roughly appropriate? How would that enforcement mechanism be brought about? Is there an appeal process, or is that all to be designed at a later date?

[1600]

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, we can require that the offending party deal with what they've deposited, but failing that, we can also hire people to do that and then subsequently recoup our costs from the offending party. It is appealable. One doesn't need a provision to say it's appealable. If we don't say it's not appealable, then it's appealable.

G. Holman: Do these provisions apply to lakes or just streams? The question I have specifically would be something like…. Fertilizers are mentioned. I'm thinking about phosphorus, which is a real issue in terms of drinking water lakes in some communities — phosphorus nutrient loading, which leads to algal blooms and problems with water quality. So, I guess, two questions — whether these provisions apply to lakes as well as streams and whether phosphorus would be included as a contaminant that's prohibited.

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, a lake is considered a stream, so lakes would be included as well. Now, the issue with respect to phosphorus, as the example…. Whether it would be covered under the Water Sustainability Act or covered under the Environmental Management Act would depend in part on how it is occurring. Is someone pur-
[ Page 3246 ]
posely dropping in phosphorus — they're intending to introduce this into the water — or is it something that is leaching out into the water as a result of some activity on the land base that would be more likely covered under the Environmental Management Act?

Our intent here is that, recognizing that there are other legislative tools, we're trying to fill any grey-area gaps that are left. This is one that can get fairly complicated, and as we, hopefully, are doing here, we're providing ourselves with sufficient tools so that we can respond to whatever type of circumstance may arise.

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for that. We can have an off-line conversation too. I don't want to complicate this discussion unnecessarily. But, for example, leaching from septic fields, which is a prime source of phosphorus in some drinking watersheds — under this legislation or the other legislation that you mentioned?

Hon. M. Polak: It would really depend on the specific circumstances. We'd have to evaluate it and then determine under which act one would be able to proceed.

Section 47 approved.

On section 48.

S. Chandra Herbert: This, I believe, we asked earlier. I asked an earlier question about professional biologists, technologists, people who work in science technology, technicians and so on — whether or not they would fall under the category of "professional" in the definitions. There's some concern that it's possible that qualified professionals could be excluded from this work in this wording.

[1605]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: I'm familiar with the concerns that have been raised. Again, this brings us back to some commentary of mine earlier where often legislative language doesn't speak with the clarity to members of the public that it may to those who live and breathe on leg. counsel. Not withstanding that, it's important to note that, first of all, this section, or the definition of "professional," only applies for the purposes of this division.

Secondly, and I think most importantly, for those who have concerns in this area, in no way will the range of work that is currently done by members of organizations like ASTTBC…. In no way will the number of areas be reduced in which they're able to employ their skills.

Section 48 approved.

On section 49.

S. Chandra Herbert: I attended an interesting event out in Abbotsford a while ago. It was called the Water Show. There were many well drillers and sump system purveyors. A range of people — biologists, conservationists — an interesting crowd.

One of the questions that I was asked was around wells. I see in this section that we're looking at certain "Restrictions on constructing or decommissioning wells and related activities."

I see that there are exemptions for wells under 15 metres in depth, a person deactivating or disinfecting their own well or doing work on their own well at the surface level.

What were the reasons for creating those exemptions?

Hon. M. Polak: What this represents is a means by which we can use the legislation to recognize that there are different levels of risk associated with different types of wells and, of course, different requirements based on those different features.

The Chair: The committee will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:10 p.m. to 4:16 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, the exemptions I can understand. You want to be able to allow people to do some of their own work on their own property in terms of putting in wells. While some people are pretty crafty digging below 15 metres, it takes a lot of work and a lot of technical know-how, I would imagine. I'm currently working on an outhouse, and digging deep enough for that is enough of a challenge — not 15 metres.

There have been some issues raised with me around people doing faulty work on their wells, potentially not sealing them properly or, in the construction, maybe introducing material that could pollute or possibly lead to problems in area wells that also rely on the same water resource.

Do you feel that introducing these kinds of restrictions which are laid out in part 3, division 3, are going to do enough of a job to make sure that we're only getting high-quality wells and that people will have adequate protections of their groundwater? I know that under the current regime, there's some real concern of people not doing it properly.

Hon. M. Polak: There are offence provisions further on. I think we get to that in section 106. In the case, though, of a person who is dealing with their own well and the issue of contamination…. In a case where you were dealing with an area with a very shallow aquifer, we do, as well, have the ability to put in place area-based
[ Page 3247 ]
regulations.

[1620]

This will allow us that flexibility to respond differently in different parts of the province, depending on the needs of the particular location. But there are, in fact, offence provisions for those who…. Well, we'll end up at that section at some point, but there's a long list of things that can be offences under the act.

S. Chandra Herbert: I see this section…. A huge degree of it will be, of course, decided by regulation in terms of how it rolls out. Area-based regulations could certainly make a difference. If you add a shallow aquifer…. I guess the challenge is that domestic water users may not know that there's an area-based regulation if they're deciding to put in a new well in their home and they're doing it themselves.

There's a bit of an issue there where I think, hopefully, as these regulations are developed, there's an understanding that people need to be informed of them, not just that they're there on the paper in case there's a problem — because of course, we should be working to be proactive rather than reactive.

I will be supporting these regulations through to 58, and I'll have some questions on 59.

I guess the question is…. When we develop regulations for well construction, that can create lots of benefits for the public, but it can also create lots of costs, potentially, depending on how you structure them. In developing well water regulations, will there be some sort of a public process with people in the industry, with people who rely on well water?

I ask because something that may sound like it makes a lot of sense at the ministry level could create a huge burden on the public if they don't have a chance to have their voice heard in developing regulations that actually work on the ground, not just in the planning stages.

Hon. M. Polak: Fortunately, we're not starting from scratch. There is already a groundwater protection regulation that is in place under the Water Act. It has provisions dealing with well drilling, and they're quite extensive. We will, though, be in communication with the industry, as well as drawing on much of the consultation that we heard as we were travelling the province in developing the act. Of course, there are also associations that I'm sure would have an interest, like the cattlemen and others such like that.

Sections 49 to 58 inclusive approved.

On section 59.

S. Chandra Herbert: Provision on the prohibition on introducing foreign matter into wells. We had the discussion about introducing refuse, carcasses, waste, construction, other materials into waterways. Now this is into wells. Is this the same kind of issue that existed around introducing bodies into streams — that unless you saw somebody do it and told them to stop and they kept doing it, you couldn't fine them? Or is this something altogether different?

[1625]

Hon. M. Polak: The member will be pleased to be advised that with respect to this section, because the well-drilling provision was already there in the Water Act, in fact in this instance one wouldn't have to wait for an engineer to tell them to stop putting the bad stuff in the well. They already can be handled.

Really, the only change in content here is an expansion to consider the adverse impacts that there may be on another aquifer or stream that is connected to the well. Other than that, it remains pretty much the same.

Sections 59 to 63 inclusive approved.

On section 64.

S. Chandra Herbert: This is a section relating to water sustainability plans and again another opportunity that could be quite powerful if developed and enacted. A lot of it's regulation, so I imagine as I go through it, if there are things which…. I will be told a lot of it is being developed.

Rather than going through each section and trying to pull out what's going to go on here, I wonder if the minister might be able to give us a sense of what the plan is to develop these water sustainability plans over the next year. What areas got the first priority in terms of developing a plan, and what is the hope of what comes out of water sustainability plans?

Hon. M. Polak: It's perhaps helpful here to talk about what the end objective is. It's not our intent that every square inch of British Columbia should eventually be under a water sustainability plan. It's enabling so that we can put in place water sustainability plans in areas where we have an existing concern or where we think one may develop in the future.

As such, what will occur is that staff will be monitoring for areas where that work would be advantageous for that local area. At this stage we don't have plans outlined as to how we will proceed with next steps. It wouldn't be to ultimately have water sustainability plans everywhere but that they would be a tool that could be used in an area where there are concerns.

S. Chandra Herbert: Certainly, the ministry has outlined their concerns with the northeast part of B.C. in terms of water sustainability. Certainly, the Okanagan, parts of Metro Vancouver and then eastern Vancouver Island, I believe, is what was on the map the ministry
[ Page 3248 ]
put out.

Now, again, this is one of those things where you could argue that the act is very strong because it has this provision. The question is if it's never enacted, then it's not very useful. It's just words on paper, and it could then be describing the act as very weak.

What kicks off the development of a water sustainability plan? I know the minister could decide on her own volition that this is something that should occur. A staff member could suggest this is something that should happen. But what are the key factors that have to be considered in order to do this?

[1630]

I know in some rivers or some streams there may be people out there who think a sustainability plan is required, given fluctuations or given challenges to the aquatic systems there. How do you make sure that this can happen if necessary?

Hon. M. Polak: Really, the process could be triggered in a number of different ways, and the member has outlined a couple of those. It could be generated by organizations in the public domain. Communities could seek it, regional districts.

It's also worth noting that this will be one tool. It won't be the only tool. I mean, there are regions in the province already that do a very good job of watershed management, of looking at their region and developing community-based plans, some of which are already in place, some of which are in development. Again, it's not meant to be the only way of dealing with this but yet another tool. It could be triggered in a number of different ways.

S. Chandra Herbert: Are there current examples of plans and networks in British Columbia — plans that might look something like a water sustainability plan — that the minister is aware of?

Hon. M. Polak: A few examples, but I'm told there are many more. The Okanagan Basin Water Board, I think the member is familiar with. They have a number of plans that relate to water use in their area. The Nicola water use management plan is another good example. Also, one that is not yet approved — but certainly I know a lot of work has gone into it — comes from my place of residence. The township of Langley, of course, has a water management plan that they've been working towards as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: Given that there are current existing plans, including the one that is quite extensively developed in Langley township — and I'd heard about it as well — is there a thought that using this framework, the minister and her staff could work with a township or with the Okanagan to create a sustainability plan for that area based on what they've already developed? Might that be a place to try this out as a first step?

Hon. M. Polak: We could. Ultimately, what we want to do is ensure that we have responded as best we can to the natural needs that are represented by the water environment but, also, to the desire of the community. There will be some communities where they wish to be very active in managing water and in the role that they can play. Other communities may not be so interested.

We will certainly look to weave our work together with work that already has been underway in their area. Nevertheless, a water sustainability plan is a somewhat different animal than many of these other plans.

[1635]

S. Chandra Herbert: Certainly, I've heard a lot of concern around water in the Cowichan Valley — a lot of concern. I'm not going to volunteer them, because they would do that themselves. But if a group had real concerns about their watershed or the water access they had, would their action be now to go to the minister and request the minister's support to create a water sustainability plan? Would they have to get town council support and advocate and ask for this? How would they go about doing this? Or is it more of a top-down kind of process?

Hon. M. Polak: We'd have to look at the individual circumstance. Obviously, we would want to see broad-based support for that. We'd also have to consider the fact that a water sustainability plan may not be the right tool in all circumstances. So it would really depend on the individual request.

S. Chandra Herbert: What kind of budget is being put aside for development of water sustainability plans?

Hon. M. Polak: That'll be a decision for Treasury Board. We'll make a submission there based on our implementation plan for the act.

Sections 64 to 68 inclusive approved.

On section 69.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

S. Chandra Herbert: This section talks about other planning processes, with consideration being given to First Nations governments, the Nisga'a government. How does this section, or following sections, differ, I suppose, from the water sustainability planning process? Or is it the same, just with a different filter on it?

Hon. M. Polak: It's really just another component of it.
[ Page 3249 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Something that hasn't come up yet is the Drinking Water Protection Act and how it relates to the Water Sustainability Act. It is mentioned in this section. Could the minister explain the interaction between the two?

Hon. M. Polak: There are lots of complexities to it. But very roughly, the Water Sustainability Act deals with quantity, and the Drinking Water Protection Act deals with quality. There are exceptions, but that's the rough split between the two.

Sections 69 and 70 approved.

On section 71.

S. Chandra Herbert: This section relates to "Notice to affected persons" if a water sustainability plan, if implemented, could "detrimentally affect the rights of…(i) an authorization holder; (ii) a change approval holder; (iii) a drilling authorization holder…(v) a riparian owner…." The list goes on.

I'm just curious. In terms of notification, giving notice, what is the government's definition of notification? Is it registered mail? Is it a phone call? Is it an e-mail?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm advised there's an entire section about that coming up in 117.

Sections 71 to 75 inclusive approved.

On section 76.

[1640]

S. Chandra Herbert: There is discussion around the definitions of "issue" and "land or resource instrument." Basically, from what I can see, this could give any government decision-maker under almost any government statute the power to implement water sustainability plans, which could be quite extraordinary powers to override provisions in other statutes for the purpose of implementing a water sustainability plan.

Again, it could be quite powerful, should a plan be created. I understand the idea would be to ensure that it has power so that it actually could be enacted. I'd just be interested…. Why was such an extraordinary amount of power, in a sense, wrapped up in this, particularly regulation and effect on statutory decisions?

Hon. M. Polak: The member is right. This can be a very powerful tool. It's one of the reasons why there is so much in the legislation and so much around the development of a water sustainability plan in the first place. This should be an avenue that is used rarely. Nevertheless, one of the things we could not avoid was the fact that land use impacts are really inextricably linked to quality of water and effects on water. We really felt there was a need for us to have the legislative teeth to actually deal with that.

Sections 76 to 78 inclusive approved.

On section 79.

G. Holman: Mr. Chair, my apologies. I'm interjecting here in the wrong section, but I just wanted to clarify that these powers conferred in this legislation would apply to Crown lands in general, to private lands, to lands under the Private Managed Forest Land Act in legislation.

Would the ability to establish a plan, to establish regulations that would implement a plan…? Would that apply to all: Crown, private land and, particularly, land in private managed forest status?

[1645]

Hon. M. Polak: Perhaps the simplest way to answer this question is that wherever we have the authority to grant a permit, whatever lands we have authority on which to grant a permit, then this would apply.

G. Holman: Just to nail it down, you have authority to grant permits in all of those land use designations. Is that correct?

The minister is nodding.

Hon. M. Polak: Yes. I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm just trying to maybe line up the two. There is permitting, and there's…. That's how it's designated.

Sections 79 to 86 inclusive approved.

On section 87.

S. Chandra Herbert: This is around critical environmental flow protection orders. I understand similar policy currently exists. How often has this kind of idea been used already, if it has? What is the best guess? Is this a stopgap that in the distant future could be a problem, or is this something that may have to be used, let's say, once a year? What is the thinking behind critical environmental flow protection orders?

Hon. M. Polak: In fact, this particular provision is new. It doesn't exist in the current Water Act. The idea behind it is this. All water licences going forward would have a fish clause. That leaves those that are pre-existing.

[1650]

This acts in place of a fish clause in their individual licences. It would apply to those that are pre-existing.

S. Chandra Herbert: My understanding of this — and correct me if I'm wrong — is that this section would require a comptroller in an area that has been issued an or-
[ Page 3250 ]
der declaring a significant water shortage to determine the critical environmental flow threshold for each stream. Is that: "Go out and measure how much water there is now compared to what's supposed to be in the report that they provided when given the licence"? Or is this a new measurement to go out and assess?

My understanding was that when given a licence, you are supposed to have submitted a report of what a critical environmental flow level would be. Or maybe it's just the environmental flow. I'm not sure if there's a difference in the terminology that would already be known. I'm just curious why they have to go out and discover it if it's potentially already known.

Hon. M. Polak: There is a difference between environmental flow needs and critical environmental flow protection. The critical environmental flows would be where you're actually in danger of seeing fish species die off as a result of the activity, which would be different than just the general environmental flow needs, which would be less conservative.

S. Chandra Herbert: So I guess environmental flow is the idea that the fish are going to survive and we've got good aquatic protections when we deal with water issues. But should an order be issued because the flow is so low, now a comptroller has to go out and look and see how much water is left. I guess that then helps determine the allocation for other users. Or if we've said, "Stop water use," there are no users aside from, I guess, the fish. Is that right? I'm just a little confused around how this would look in practice.

Hon. M. Polak: A few different pieces of information, I think, are helpful here. Firstly, we have a provincial drought technical working group. These folks are well familiar with where there are trouble spots in the province, and they have already done much of the work in terms of understanding the environmental flow needs in a particular region.

It's worth outlining, I guess, the difference between environmental flow needs and critical environmental flows. Environmental flow needs aren't just about minimum stream flows, but they are about the volume, the timing of the flow. When does the stream need what type of flow to stay healthy? Critical environmental flows are a short-term threshold beneath which you would see irreversible harm to an aquatic ecosystem.

[1655]

While environmental flow needs have to be considered in the granting of a licence, that hasn't always been the case. Because we have licences that have been in place for, gosh, going back, lo, these many generations, this puts in place the same kind of protection that would be there if we had the current practice in place back in that day. This affects those pre-existing licences where those environmental flows weren't considered at the granting.

Section 87 approved.

On section 88.

S. Chandra Herbert: Fish population protection orders. We have the Fish Protection Act, I think the minister mentioned. How many times have these orders had to be issued, or is this a big change?

Hon. M. Polak: It's actually only been done once: in 2009 in the upper Nicola. Thankfully, it was successful, and the fish began returning almost immediately, but it was touch-and-go, as I understand it. So yes, only once.

Section 88 approved.

On section 89.

S. Chandra Herbert: How many drinking water officers or water bailiffs do we have working for the province right now?

Hon. M. Polak: The drinking water officers are under the Ministry of Health. At the time when the Drinking Water Protection Act was brought into force, there were about 40. I wouldn't be able to tell you how many there are currently. As far as water bailiffs, there are about a dozen or so.

Sections 89 to 97 inclusive approved.

On section 98.

S. Chandra Herbert: This section relates to recovery of amounts owing for work performed. It allows the government to recover costs approved from one or more people, due to not complying with an order related to a hearing or inquiry under the Water Sustainability Act.

[1700]

I'm interested in this, because, I think, sometimes when it relates to the natural environment, we undervalue both the work of government and the work of the natural systems. This, I think, similarly could be argued in the next section, and I'll probably do that there as well.

Are we talking about getting interest for the amount of money owing? Are we talking about progressively stepping up the amount of money owing to the government? I think if people see that, as they have done under fines that they've been issued under the Water Act and in other respects over the years…. They often just don't pay them. I'm glad the ministry is finally publishing their names, but we still see situations where people just do not feel that…. For some reason, with fines or penalties or amounts owing, when it comes to the natural environ-
[ Page 3251 ]
ment and government, some people like to shirk their responsibilities, including some relatively large B.C. corporations, which we all know.

How do we up the pressure? Is the minister considering doing that in this section so people don't get away with committing crimes or damaging the natural world and getting off scot-free?

Hon. M. Polak: Firstly, this provision is quite similar to an existing provision in the Water Act, the change here being that we have extended the recovery for water bailiff costs as well.

With respect to how you get people to take this seriously, the member will be aware that we've started to take some increasingly public action with respect to people who owe money. We, of course, can pursue it through the courts and achieve a court order. Unfortunately, in some cases even under a court order a person still does not pay up, so we have now been publicizing the identities of companies and individuals who owe money under a court order yet have not yet paid.

We'll continue to try and increase the pressure in whatever ways we can, but some people just hold out.

Section 98 approved.

On section 99.

S. Chandra Herbert: This is around administrative monetary penalties. It allows the ability to give administrative penalties if a person has contravened the Water Sustainability Act or not complied with an order.

I guess in response to the previous answer, I appreciate that the ministry is no longer hiding the names and has decided to make them public. I think that's one step, to do that. I think the question, of course…. It goes to licences to hunt. Whether it's licences to take water, I don't know. I think I would encourage the minister to think far and wide, because if a person thinks they can flout the law and damage the natural world and not have to pay up, they probably shouldn't get a driver's licence renewed until they do so. They probably should not be given the full benefits of living in society if they've decided to neglect their responsibility to that society.

[1705]

I wonder, and maybe it's extreme, but I think we've got to get tough here. We've got to get serious if we're going to send the message that we actually care about our natural environment. Sometimes they have to pay a fine, but we don't get that nature back. It takes a while for nature to regenerate, and oftentimes the fine doesn't really pay for the crime. I know there are further sections in here around creative sentencing and so on, and we'll touch on those at that point.

Is the minister considering going to her colleagues and making arguments for the potential of other government services maybe not being quite so readily available to people who've decided to flout the law in this way?

Hon. M. Polak: We're always considering ways in which we might achieve enforcement. It's always a challenge to consider attaching other services. I suppose I wouldn't entirely rule it out, but here's one of the challenges you face. I'm sure the member has heard this argument with respect to other areas.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

How much do you put on — for example, in the case of car insurance or a driver's licence — the poor person manning the counter who's there giving out driver's licences or insurance and now is asked to tell this person that as a result of their unpaid environment fines, they can't license their truck?

I don't disagree with the member's point around the serious nature of these kinds of offences. Nevertheless, we have to consider that kind of a balance. I think we're always open to new ideas as to how we might better enforce the payment of these moneys owing.

This provision in section 99 is a good example in the sense that it's new, and any time you can streamline the administration of a penalty, then I think you're more likely to get that compliance. Especially when there can be rapid action, it takes away from that feeling that "well, many, many months ago I did X, Y and Z, and it takes somebody that long to get around dealing with it." In this case, much more swift action can be taken.

B. Routley: I guess my question to the minister relates to Shawnigan. Of course, the issue of contaminated soil in that region is very troublesome for the people in the Cowichan Valley, and foremost amongst their concerns is the potential impact on water.

My question comes down to: is this section 99 one of the tools that the ministry could use, or the residents of the Shawnigan region, to have penalties put in place if the plans that have been put in place to prevent water pollution don't work out? We've been told that the plastic retaining wall between contaminated soil and the potential of leaching into local creeks is the depth of two loonies. With all of that material packed on top of it, of course, residents say the obvious thing. They're concerned that there could be cracks or fractures or if there was an earthquake or other catastrophic event that resulted in pollution.

The question is: would this be the section that the residents of the Shawnigan Lake region who have aquifers or wells or water supply from the lake would be able to count on to have the ministry take action to defend their interests and to protect their water and to call for penalties? And would those penalties include remediation? Or is that under some other section of the act, such as general
[ Page 3252 ]
offences, which is a section that's coming up under 106?

Hon. M. Polak: In the case of an activity that is permitted under the Environmental Management Act, which would be the case with respect to South Island Aggregates, then it would be the Environmental Management Act that would apply, not the Water Sustainability Act. It would be governed by the provisions in that act.

[1710]

B. Routley: Just to follow up. There would be people that have nothing to do with the management plan of the contaminated site, for example — not the owner. They could be totally removed, such as a lakefront owner that has a water supply from a well or from the lake that's adjacent to that area. Are you saying that even if they had some kind of a water agreement or if the community was to establish a water board–type situation, they would still go under a different act and not under this?

Hon. M. Polak: These are some of the limitations of discussing a hypothetical: "What if this permitted use goes wrong?" Hard to analyze the hypothetical, but in the case where a permitted use…. And there are conditions to a permit. In the case where either the conditions were breached or the conditions that were put in place fail…. All of those are governed under the Environmental Management Act, and it contemplates what happens in any of those events. But in the abstract I wouldn't be able to give you an exact answer. Because it's an authorized use under the Environmental Management Act, it would be the Environmental Management Act that would apply.

S. Chandra Herbert: Under administrative monetary penalties there's a listing of what the comptroller must consider in deciding what a monetary penalty could be. There's a long list: "(c) the extent of adverse impacts to the environment or the rights of other persons resulting from the contravention or failure; (d) whether the contravention or failure was repeated or continuous." There's a good long list which catches, I think, most things.

I think the question would be: in deciding on a monetary penalty, would the amount of ministry time, staff time, court time, potentially — I guess maybe not court time — be considered when coming up with an administrative penalty? I think we still lose if you have an administrative penalty which may be big for the person but it costs the Ministry of Environment staff hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to track down and investigate and do the work. In the end, the citizen still loses because of the person's flouting the law.

So how does that kind of consideration get taken into consideration?

Hon. M. Polak: Not precisely. When you look at the list, you'll see there are a couple of references with respect to the frequency of contravention and if there have been previous incidents, etc. So that kind of gets there. We mustn't forget that, of course, the comptroller's powers wouldn't be limitless in terms of dollar figures. There would be a maximum amount, and then the comptroller would apportion part of that or all, depending on that criteria.

S. Chandra Herbert: It's always a challenge, I think, to put a value on the natural environment and to put a value in terms of, if somebody is breaking the regulations, what impact that has. So it is a challenge.

My concern is that if somebody really was quite egregious in what they did, the costs can be quite high. It doesn't take much to create quite a costly cleanup and remediation, should somebody damage a watercourse or a well or something like that. Of course, if you polluted a well, you could potentially eliminate drinking water for people in a region. Or if you were to pollute a stream in such a way, you could end fishing in that region as well, which could have quite massive impacts.

[1715]

When the minister talks about putting a cap on how much, the comptroller not being limitless in their ability to assess a fine, I'm looking for some, I guess I should say, security that we're going to make sure that people actually pay when they do the crime, not just get a slap on the wrist when the crime could be quite egregious.

Hon. M. Polak: This particular section was introduced so that we have something between just a fine or all the way to an offence. If there was a particularly egregious action, we can always prosecute in terms of an offence, and of course, while we wouldn't be considering, in the administrative penalties, staff time, say administrative time, when we do have to have staff hired or we hire people to clean up, what have you, we do seek to recoup those costs.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess I didn't jump up quite quick enough, but I can ask it here. The notice of intent to impose administrative monetary penalties. I guess I want to know…. When we talk about an administrative penalty, is this something the Ministry of Environment has used in other acts or in other parts of its mandate? Or is this new for the Ministry of Environment?

I know in the Ministry of Housing, in relation to the Residential Tenancy Act, an administrative penalty has only been used once, and then the government got rid of it. So the bad apples in residential tenancy law have not been receiving penalties, even though they were there to clean up bad apples, supposedly. It just has never happened. They just continue to be bad apples. But I don't want that to happen here.

I'm just curious what the ministry's experience is of using this law or these penalties. Do they have people trained up to know how to bring forward these penal-
[ Page 3253 ]
ties so that we can ensure that they actually are done correctly and quickly?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm not aware of other areas in the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment where we utilize administrative penalties. However, in terms of the staff, this would be the natural resource officers, and they do have the appropriate training to be able to execute.

Sections 99 to 104 inclusive approved.

On section 105.

S. Chandra Herbert: This section relates to the appeals process, giving people, I guess, the discretion or the ability to appeal an order to the Environmental Appeal Board. For my knowledge and for those watching at home, the Environmental Appeal Board…. Can the minister explain the process so that people get a sense of what their right to appeal is?

Also, I'd be curious how many appeals are, I guess, approved, accepted, versus rejected currently under the Environmental Appeal Board.

[1720]

Hon. M. Polak: Firstly, with respect to numbers, it's late enough in the day that we don't have access to the staff who could tell us, but I'm told it is on the website for the Environmental Appeal Board. With respect to this section, it is essentially, for all intents and purposes, the same as what's currently in the Water Act. However, it really wasn't well aligned with the Environmental Management Act, under which the Environmental Appeal Board operates, so the changes really are there to align it better with the act.

Section 105 approved.

On section 106.

S. Chandra Herbert: "General offences" is what this section relates to, and it has quite a good list of what would be general offences. I didn't know that opening or closing a hydrant used for fire protection would be a general offence, but it is here.

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'll stop. I'll stop. It was all those movies of kids playing by fire hydrants in a hot summer. It's just so attractive, but I'll have to stop.

There's quite a long list here of offences, and I think it would be good if everybody read them in this House. They could tell their friends and make sure that when they go out on the land, they're not doing this stuff.

Again, maybe I'll just put this…. It would be good for me to just have this knowledge long term. As the folks have gone home at the ministry, so they can't provide me this information today, is it possible to get that information on both the appeal board and the general offences? How many per year are we looking at? Are we trending up? Are we trending down? Are we roughly staying the same? That would be useful for me.

In addition, I would ask a similar question around the high-penalty offences.

Hon. M. Polak: We'd be happy to provide that.

Sections 106 and 107 approved.

On section 108.

S. Chandra Herbert: I like this section, I've got to say. I think that allowing a court to increase the fine imposed on an individual to equal any amount that the individual has gained or earned due to their offence, including fines higher than are allowable under sections 106 or 107….

I like this because it reminds me of one of the first things I had to deal with when I was on the park board, where a woman chopped down some trees illegally. They weren't her trees; they were out in parkland. She got fined for cutting down the trees, but the value of her property had increased so much that she was ahead of the game. Her neighbours hated her. She had to move out of the neighbourhood, but she planned to do that anyway, so she made out like a bandit. The trees were chopped, and they had to plant some small trees to replace these great old trees that had been in front of her house.

Is this a new section, or has this been used before, to the minister's knowledge?

Hon. M. Polak: It is a new section, and it's to get at precisely what the member illustrated. As an additional deterrent, the court can then consider if there's been any kind of benefit from the activity.

Section 108 approved.

On section 109.

S. Chandra Herbert: I realize I might be sounding like a "law and order, lock 'em up, get tough on crime, throw the book at 'em" kind of guy. But hey, maybe that's where I'm at right now. Certainly, there are certain things that get people's backs up.

[1725]

I'm not Dirty Harry, but I certainly do take environmental protection seriously.

Creative sentencing. I guess the idea here is that a monetary fine is one way to get at these things, but there are other ways to try and sentence them. Could the minister provide some examples of what creative sentencing
[ Page 3254 ]
could look like?

Hon. M. Polak: Three examples. There could be other creative means that a judge could consider — for example, directing the person to perform community service. They could be directed to pay money to the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund under part 3 of the Wildlife Act. You could require the person to publish the facts relating to what they did.

There are any number of ways of doing it, but I agree with the member that sometimes the money isn't quite enough or sometimes it's not quite the tailored effect you want.

Section 109 approved.

On section 110.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just for my understanding, the breach of creative sentencing order. If somebody had been given a sentence…. Let's say they polluted the water in a local watershed, and maybe the creative order was: "Put your picture up there, apologizing to everybody, and stand there and greet the visitors to the park, sharing how upset you were that you did such a horrible thing."

Just an idea, Minister. You don't have to do it, but it's an idea.

If they refused to do that and didn't do that, is the idea here that the judge or some person could say they haven't fulfilled their duty and we're going back to a monetary order as was originally considered?

Hon. M. Polak: They could be prosecuted, so the provision simply is a backstop to the previous section.

Sections 110 and 111 approved.

On section 112.

S. Chandra Herbert: This is about putting a time limit for prosecuting the offence. I'm curious. It talks about "(a) 3 years after the date on which the act or omission that is alleged to constitute the offence occurred: (b) if the minister completes a certificate described in subsection (2), 3 years after the date on which the minister learned of the act or omission referred to in paragraph (a). (2) A certificate purporting to have been issued by the minister, certifying the date referred to in subsection (1) (b), is proof of that date."

Is this to try to get at the fact that making…? Let's say you could pollute your land in such a way that maybe…. I think of some of the issues now that people are having with old oil tanks in their backyards where the oil may be leaking out. It may have been leaking for a long, long time, but nobody knows about it until it starts polluting somebody else's water resource.

Now, maybe the oil tank in a backyard is not a good example, but what kind of a…? How do we get at long-term offences? How do we get at those things that don't hurt us today but maybe hurt us in 50 years because of somebody contravening the Water Act in such a way that the seepage rate was so low we didn't notice it until a lot later in life?

Hon. M. Polak: It's important to make the distinction that the end liability for a user with a licence remains. There's no three-year limit on that. The Water Act, the existing one, had an 18-month limit. We've expanded that to the three years.

Yeah, I wouldn't use the oil tank example, because it's not something that you would be prosecuting, I would think. Here we're talking about offences, and it's just the nature of things that often it takes some time to gather all the necessary information in order to prosecute an offence.

[1730]

Sections 112 to 117 inclusive approved.

On section 118.

S. Chandra Herbert: This provides that if a fee is not paid when it is due, then a person is liable to pay interest. Is that just the standard interest, or after a year do we increase the interest? What's the scale here? Certainly, you could save some money if you waited for a while to pay, depending on what your investment portfolio looked like — or possibly make money, I guess, would be the argument.

Is this progressive? Are we thinking about making it progressively more, the interest? How's the ministry looking to deal with this?

Hon. M. Polak: This is another one where if we had access to other staff, we could probably give you some additional information. But remember, we can cancel a licence for non-payment. I mean, that really becomes the harshest deterrent of all.

Sections 118 to 124 inclusive approved.

On section 125.

S. Chandra Herbert: Fees, rentals and charges. This authorizes the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish fees, rentals and charges. Are there currently any new fees being considered? I know that we've talked about the cost of licences and the fees related to water use in the province, that there had been a consultation and a plan to look at that. Are there fees that are currently not being charged which are looking to be added by regulation?
[ Page 3255 ]

Hon. M. Polak: Staff are currently doing the work to compile the results of information gathered not only through the longer-term consultation that we undertook leading up to the act but also the recent consultation around principles that will guide rental fees and charges. Then we will take a submission forward to Treasury Board. The staff are just now working to put that information together, so there's nothing before me at this point.

V. Huntington: With regard to the consultation process, there were substantial numbers of comments on the blog and about 2,900 e-mails. Can the minister tell us anything about what the government heard during those consultation processes? Can you give us any idea at this point?

Hon. M. Polak: At this stage I could only tell you anecdotally — so what my impressions are — because I don't have that analysis from staff yet.

I would say, overall, there's a desire, certainly on the part of British Columbians, to not only protect our water but make sure that it's handled in a way that respects the very valuable resource that it is. We heard that loud and clear from people — and reinforced many of the long-held views of British Columbians that people are not interested in exporting our water, selling it to the U.S. or what have you. That's been a longstanding belief of British Columbians, and that seems, as well, to be continuing to be represented.

V. Huntington: Can the minister tell us when she expects the consultations and the data gathered to be made public and when we might be expecting to see the regulations pursuant to these consultations?

[1735]

Hon. M. Polak: All the input that we have received is on the blog. Even handwritten or typed letters have been scanned and placed on there so people can take a look at all of the comments we've received.

I don't have the staff here with me who are conducting the analysis of that, so I wouldn't be able to tell you a precise timeline at this stage. But we have to have fees and rentals in place before we actually can implement the act, so of course, we will time that with the implementation of the act.

V. Huntington: There's been quite a bit of concern over the last few years about the low fees being charged by the Oil and Gas Commission for water used in fracking. During the Water Act consultation process the government admitted there was clear support from British Columbians to raise those fees.

I'm wondering if the government is intending…. Will the government be increasing the fees it charges to the oil and gas industry for water use, especially the water used for this purpose that results in the permanent removal of the water from the hydrological system? Will you be increasing the fees presently charged?

Hon. M. Polak: The OGC would make its decisions with respect to the short-term-use permits that it grants. With respect to the longer term — the licences that we grant — that will be part of what we're considering as we put together the new fees and rental structure.

Sections 125 to 128 inclusive approved.

On section 129.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is this a change from current regulations? I see that this would allow the amending of the schedule to designate a stream as a protected river. I just wanted to know: is this a change?

Hon. M. Polak: A change in the sense that it is pulling together parts of two other acts — one being the old Water Act and one being the Fish Protection Act.

S. Chandra Herbert: When was the last time a protected river was added to the schedule, and when was the last time a protected river was deleted from the schedule?

Hon. M. Polak: There have been no changes since the bill was brought in, in 1997.

S. Chandra Herbert: What thinking goes into adding a river as a protected river?

[1740]

Hon. M. Polak: The list essentially covers all the large salmon-bearing rivers in B.C. In all likelihood, there won't be an addition to that list because we've pretty much captured them all with this legislation.

Sections 129 to 141 inclusive approved.

On section 142.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, 142. This is a transition section around the transition from the current Water Act to the Water Sustainability Act. What this section says, as I understand it, is: "A water management plan approved under section 64…as it read immediately before the coming into force of this section, is deemed to be a water sustainability plan…." How many water management plans approved under section 64(3), "Approval of water management plan," currently exist?

Hon. M. Polak: Currently there are none. The transition provision is here in the event that one might be approved prior to implementation of the new act.
[ Page 3256 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: I wish we'd had this debate tomorrow, because the Forest Practices Board just came out with a new report which is full of very interesting information relating to the lack of protection, in many respects, of community watersheds and groups or companies not following through on their commitments.

There aren't any current water management plans, but we often hear about community watershed plans. Maybe it's a loose term, but would those be considered under water management plans, or is there anywhere in this act that a community watershed plan of some respect in relation to forestry comes into question?

Hon. M. Polak: None of those plans would be captured as a water management plan. However, as we spoke of earlier, we could certainly combine the efforts of a water sustainability plan with the types of plans that the member has described. This section, though, deals with those that would be water management plans.

[1745]

S. Chandra Herbert: I was going to ask the difference between a water management plan, a water sustainability plan, and a community watershed plan.

Hon. M. Polak: The distinction here…. And it's part of the reason this is in the transition section. What we're contemplating is that there's potential for a water management plan to be approved prior to the Water Sustainability Act being implemented. It would be specific to a plan approved under the provision mentioned in the section. That would be the distinction — that those others, while quite valid, wouldn't be approved under that particular provision. That's the distinction.

V. Huntington: Could the minister tell us what value the ministry attaches to a community watershed plan? And how does it differ from what is speculated upon in the act?

Hon. M. Polak: The reason no other plans are mentioned here in the transition section is because a water management plan would be the only type of plan that would be approved under a legal provision.

With respect to community watershed plans and those types of community efforts — water basin plans, all those kinds of things that communities develop — one of the benefits of the new act is that we will be able to combine the efforts, and we could then approve one of those plans as a water sustainability plan or as part of a water sustainability plan. Currently, though, there's no legal framework under which those plans exist.

V. Huntington: Does the ministry intend to dedicate the resources that would be required to provide an integrated approach in that respect?

Hon. M. Polak: This will come down to a discussion that the critic and I had earlier. It's not our intent to have water sustainability plans all across the province. They will be useful in some areas and not in others. So what we will be doing is looking at areas where we have concern, areas where we maybe have requests. But in due course we may find that there are areas where people have sought to have a water sustainability plan, and we end up advising them that maybe that's not the best tool for their particular circumstance. We will deploy resources as the needs arise to pursue these.

Section 142 approved.

The Chair: We've reached the consequential and related amendments. Are there any further questions through the consequential…?

Sections 143 to 197 inclusive approved.

On section 198.

S. Chandra Herbert: The "Water Users' Communities Act." Could the minister explain this act, this section of the legislation?

[1750]

Hon. M. Polak: Ultimately, we will likely incorporate this act into the Water Sustainability Act. For the time being, this change reflects the fact that now groundwater will be captured under the Water Sustainability Act. So there is no need in the current — what is it called? — water users community act to then make a specific reference around the application to groundwater.

S. Chandra Herbert: I see. So that's the discussion around the water users community act — that basically, the ministry is considering combining it with the Water Sustainability Act but we're not fully there yet. Is that the issue, or will it, at a certain point, through future legislation, be brought into the act? What is the ministry thinking on this?

Hon. M. Polak: The challenge with this act is that it predates current legislation, not just with respect to water but with the way corporations function. So the language needs to be modernized. It doesn't really fit very well with the current environment around corporate law.

Section 198 approved.

The Chair: Are there any further questions in the remaining consequential amendments?

S. Chandra Herbert: I do have a few questions in particular. I guess it would be under 202.
[ Page 3257 ]

Sections 199 to 201 inclusive approved.

On section 202.

S. Chandra Herbert: This section discusses the agreement dated August 28, 1987, entered into under the Greater Vancouver Water District Act by the greater Vancouver water district to sell and supply water to Point Roberts water district No. 4.

I'm just curious if the minister could explain this. I know legislation had been brought in to stop bulk water exports — in the late 1990s, early 2000s, I believe. This, of course, predates that. Just curious: how does this work, and are we still getting a good price? How does this connect in with free trade legislation?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm afraid I can't speak to the price or to free trade. At the time that the legislation was brought in to prohibit the export of water, there were certain areas, like what happens at Point Roberts, where that was grandfathered.

Sections 202 to 219 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise and report completion of the bill without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:55 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — WATER SUSTAINABILITY ACT

Bill 18, Water Sustainability Act, reported complete without amendment.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Polak: Now.

Madame Speaker: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Bill 18, Water Sustainability Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on the Animal Health Act, Bill 19.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 5:59 p.m.

[1800]

On section 1.

N. Simons: It's my pleasure to be here and to debate in second and third committee stage and to ask questions about the bill that we've canvassed only slightly so far.

Can the minister explain the changes to definitions that exist in Bill 19 with relation to the definition of "animal" and the addition of the term "aquatic animal"? What was the purpose of adding "aquatic animal" into the legislation?

Hon. T. Lake: My understanding is the definition has not been changed. I'm just looking for the section that the member is referencing. Animal is "a species of the animal kingdom" and "any organism prescribed as an animal" in the definitions section of the bill.

N. Simons: There's no intent to exclude any of the animal kingdom with that definition?

Hon. T. Lake: The definition is very broad in order to capture animals, fish, livestock, poultry, animals kept on game and fur farms as well as bees. It also allows for an organism to be prescribed or not be prescribed as an animal through regulation. So it's very broad to allow encompassing many different species of animals.

N. Simons: My second question has to do with the apparent lack of a definition of disease. Is there an explanation for that?

Hon. T. Lake: Disease is prescribed in regulation. Under the definition there are two types of diseases that are listed: a notifiable disease and a reportable disease.

N. Simons: Why would those not be included in the definitions of Bill 19?

Hon. T. Lake: The number and types of notifiable and reportable diseases may change from time to time. For instance, this legislation recognizes diseases that weren't recognized in the past. So having it in the regulation, as is the case in most other jurisdictions, allows the flexibility
[ Page 3258 ]
to add diseases as reportable or notifiable as they emerge and become important to control.

N. Simons: Who makes the distinction between reportable and notifiable?

Hon. T. Lake: There are international protocols that are adhered to, but ultimately, it's the decision of the chief veterinarian which disease is listed as notifiable or reportable.

N. Simons: Can the minister let the House know if the distinction is the same for neighbouring provinces or if this is something unique to B.C.?

[1805]

Hon. T. Lake: Again, there is a convention that is similar across the province, and the federal government also has a list of reportable diseases. Generally speaking, the lists are similar across jurisdictions, but we have the ability and the right to have our own list. Whereas it typically is consistent, it doesn't necessarily lock B.C. into the same list as other jurisdictions have. We have the ability to add diseases as being reportable or notifiable independently of other jurisdictions, but generally there's a consistency across the jurisdictions of Canada.

N. Simons: For clarification, is E. coli classified under those definitions?

Hon. T. Lake: No, E. coli is an organism found naturally in the environment and in the gut of most animals. It's not a reportable or notifiable…. It's not considered a disease. Of course, it can produce toxins that can make people ill under the right circumstances, but it isn't in itself considered a disease.

N. Simons: When it results in causing illness through the toxicity, how does that get turned into a classification? What does it become — a reportable disease or a notifiable?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, E. coli is not a reportable or notifiable disease. It's not a disease in itself. It can, under the right circumstances, make a person ill if food is mishandled, if food is not cooked properly. If someone does not handle or manage themselves around animals correctly, they could pick up the bacteria and the subsequent disease from it, but it is not a disease in itself. It's essentially the reaction that it can cause, under certain circumstances, in people.

N. Simons: So it would be fair to say that that particular toxin would be caused by animal husbandry practices, for example?

Hon. T. Lake: As I said, E. coli is in every animal's gut, and it is the way that the animals', essentially, intestinal contents are handled and the meat coming into contact with any intestinal contents. The way they would be handled would cause the possibility of passing on E. coli into a human, which then could cause illness. But it in itself is not a disease.

N. Simons: If there were high levels of E. coli in a particular feedlot, for example, is that something that the Animal Health Act would contemplate addressing?

[1810]

Hon. T. Lake: I think the hon. critic is expressing concern that there's a potential for E. coli getting into the food chain or into humans through the environment around a feedlot. Wherever you have animal feces, you will have E. coli, so it's impossible, even on an individual-animal basis, to have it E. coli–free. It just is impossible to do.

However, section 5 does talk about safe handling and preventative measures to be taken when a person is responsible for an animal. Then, of course, down the food chain there are meat regulations, public health legislation, that govern the safe handling of food.

N. Simons: Thank you for the answer. I appreciate that.

Are viruses part of the disease continuum reportable or notifiable?

Hon. T. Lake: It would be specific for the particular virus. There are millions of viruses out there of which we don't even have any knowledge. Those that we know cause disease could fall under the reportable or notifiable category.

N. Simons: The piscine reovirus — has that been identified? Is that something that the government is paying attention to as it impacts salmon? Many suspect that it's found itself in our waters, and it's highly infectious.

Hon. T. Lake: I would beg the member's indulgence to perhaps re-ask that question tomorrow when our chief veterinarian will be with us, since my licence has expired.

N. Simons: For the benefit of my colleagues, perhaps the minister would like to introduce the two people who are helping him today with my very challenging questions.

Hon. T. Lake: My apologies for not doing so earlier. On my left I have Linda Bates, who is our senior manager for legislation, and our deputy minister, Derek Sturko.

Section 1 approved.
[ Page 3259 ]

On section 2.

N. Simons: Can the minister inform this House if the interpretation section has changed in any material way from Bill 37 previously introduced?

Hon. T. Lake: In no material or immaterial way.

N. Simons: Minister, I was going to ask about the immaterial way later, but since you got to it already, actually, that's fine.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

N. Simons: It's come to my attention that in section 3 there have been some changes with respect to some of the language. The words "will" or "will likely" have been replaced with "may," possibly to create a lower standard of causality. Would this have any impact on the ability to prosecute an offence under this section?

[1815]

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, the language, as the member noted, has changed to a lower standard, if you like, so that in a court of law there's a greater chance of proving that a person responsible for an animal…. Well, in other words, there's a higher duty for the person responsible for an animal to not cause conditions that contribute to the presence of a notifiable or reportable disease.

It essentially lowers the bar, if you like, in terms of looking after animals in a way that will protect the public by preventing the spread of notifiable or reportable diseases.

N. Simons: I note that some of the definitions are in regulation. When they come into force is in regulation. I'm just curious. This standard in section 3: is that applicable to all sectors in agriculture? Is it the same for organic farming as it is for the larger, more industrial operations? Who is this section, in particular, geared towards?

Hon. T. Lake: As the section outlines there, "a person responsible for an animal" is who we are referring to here, so anyone charged with the husbandry of an animal.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

N. Simons: This section: "Duty to train and equip." The responsibility seems to be on the owner to ensure that the employees are trained and equipped. I'm just curious as to how that is measured and how that's determined. What standard is the assessor using in that determination?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, it's to ensure that a person's employees are adequately trained and equipped to "prevent, to the extent…possible, the presence, transmission or spread of notifiable and reportable diseases."

It's a general standard of care, and it would vary, of course, depending on the type of operation. Essentially, in many operations, there is no standard, if you like. If someone is working in a dairy barn, for instance, it's up to the owner of the dairy barn to ensure that that person managing the cows in the dairy barn is properly trained and equipped to prevent the spread of disease. But there is no certification, no accreditation or levels of care that are standardized across the sector.

N. Simons: Does the minister see that as a potential problem in terms of any possibility of prosecution, if it were ever to come to that — if there's no standard as to the level of training required to ensure that your animal husbandry practices don't transmit diseases? I would imagine that's a complicated issue. At the same time, I wonder if British Columbia is different from other jurisdictions, or if it's the same here. We don't have any standards; we just have expectations?

[1820]

Hon. T. Lake: In a situation where a person was charged with an offence, it would essentially be up to the court to decide whether or not the person had adequately trained their employee to carry out the work in a way that did not allow the transmission of disease. Evidence would be presented in terms of the person or people involved in the animal husbandry and whether or not, in the court's opinion, they were adequately trained by the employer to prevent the spread of disease.

N. Simons: I wouldn't envy the position of any judge if they were to assess a person's ability based on absolutely no standard of training. I don't know, maybe…. Is it just that obvious, that in a prosecution you'll make your case or not? Or is this just in here as sort of a general warning to do your best? Is it really ever intended that any prosecution would arise from this?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I think there could be situations in which it would be obvious if someone was not trained properly. It's hard to think of every eventuality, of course, but if you can imagine, on a ranch there are people that assist with animal husbandry, and it would be, I think, impossible to have standardized training for every level of need on a ranch or a dairy farm. The nature of agriculture is such that these are often skills that are learned on the job or through family.

If there were to be a court process that involved the demonstration of a lack of training or a lack of oversight,
[ Page 3260 ]
I think that it would be obvious because there would be evidence presented to indicate that there would be sort of a common standard out there, even though there is no accreditation or, essentially, formal regulations around this. It could be demonstrated that in reasonable farm practice, it would be expected that someone doing this kind of animal husbandry would be trained to a different level than the person involved if there was an offence that was trying to be proven.

N. Simons: So essentially, section 4 is sort of an aspirational statement. I wonder if that does belong in legislation. Are there other jurisdictions that put wish lists in their legislation?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the member may term it "aspirational," but it is an expectation that if you are employing people to perform animal husbandry they must be trained in a way that doesn't allow the transmission of disease. It is a standard of care or a duty of the employer to ensure that their employees are adequately trained, and again, that could be tested in court.

I wouldn't call it aspirational, but I do think, as most things, you're relying on people to follow the law, and when producers look at this legislation they will know they have a duty to provide adequate training for their employees.

N. Simons: Well, I'm not a farmer, but I've done some learning. I'm just thinking that the training expected on a small operation may not be the same training expected in a very large…. For example, in a poultry facility that has thousands of birds as opposed to someone who's expected to look after a smaller flock. I don't know. I think perhaps that…. I'm a believer in legislation that's robust and that is adequately flexible to meet all situations, and I'm not sure how this is, without the standards.

[1825]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I would say this gives ultimate flexibility because the one- or two-cow operation is substantially different than a large industrial feedlot, for instance. I think the expectation and the consequences of the prevention of disease transmission are quite different in both circumstances. A court of law would not expect, I don't believe, the same standard to apply to a two-cow operation as it would to a 1,000-head feedlot.

I think this gives flexibility and common sense while still outlining for producers that they must train their employees adequately to perform their duties in a way that doesn't allow for the transmission of disease.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

N. Simons: This section deals with the requirement to comply with veterinary advice. Is there any provision in here that allows an owner to seek second opinions prior to being reported to the chief veterinarian?

Hon. T. Lake: This section is really important in terms of rapid notification of the chief veterinarian if there is a possibility of a notifiable or reportable disease. If a veterinarian that is inspecting and examining animals feels there is a possibility of a notifiable or reportable disease, he gives instructions to the owner that must be followed, and then the veterinarian has the obligation to report any non-compliance to the chief veterinarian. However, having said that, if the owner wanted to seek another opinion, then the second veterinarian would do their due diligence and then have a discussion with the chief veterinarian.

It's important that if there is a professional opinion that there may be a notifiable or reportable disease, it is paramount to notify the chief veterinarian as early as possible. That gives us the best ability to contain any reportable or notifiable disease.

N. Simons: That's somewhat helpful, but I think the issue may be that the owner of the animal essentially loses control over the situation until such a second opinion is received, I suppose.

Hon. T. Lake: I think the member is quite correct. This is the qualified professional reliance model. If a qualified professional — in this case, a veterinarian — has the opinion that he or she is dealing with a notifiable or reportable disease, it is important to notify the chief veterinarian, and that's the first trigger.

Mr. Chair, noting the hour, our committee reports progress and seeks leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:29 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.
[ Page 3261 ]

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $5,350,361,000 (continued).

Hon. P. Fassbender: If I can, just one point of clarification for the member opposite on the one question that he asked about the ACE IT and SSA programs. Our baseline year was 2012-13, and we had a total for both programs of 4,199 graduates. In 2013-14 we have 4,324. That's broken down at 3,407 for ACE IT and 1,336 for SSA. As the member heard from the announcement today, we are looking to double the ACE IT programs in the next two years to 5,000. We're going to be actively exploring that.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister a little bit about special needs education funding, just to get a snapshot of what this budget resources and some of the policy considerations that might be being looked at by his minister's office.

My understanding, just to get sort of some baseline numbers established, is that if you go back to, say, 2001-2002 and you look at the total expenditures for special needs education, you've got a figure just shy of $500 million. It's $496 million in that fiscal year. For 2011-2012 you have about $711 million total expenditure.

What's interesting is that the total expenditure in 2001-02 for provincial grants provided to districts for special needs is $443 million, so it's about 12 percent of all the grants given to education, period, but it's almost equal to the total provincial expenditures. So $443 million granted and $496 million expended that year on special needs education.

[1340]

Go back to 2011-12, which unfortunately is the last fiscal year I have, and $711 million expended is the total provincial expenditure but $385 million is the amount granted. It's going from about 94 percent funding that is expended on special needs education to somewhere just over 54 percent, and the decline in the total education spending for special needs goes from about 12 percent of the total down to 8 percent.

Does the minister have numbers for total provincial expenditures for special needs, as well as total provincial grants for special needs, in the most recent fiscal year? Does he have anything more current than 2011-12?

Hon. P. Fassbender: One of the things that the member may not be aware of is that we did change the way we funded high-incidence students in the system — where they were included in the block, so they're not pulled out as separate amounts.

What I can tell the member is that for the 2013-14 budget year the boards of education and independent school authorities received $457.5 million for level 1, 2 and 3 supplemental funding. That broke down at $403.7 million to public boards and $53.8 million to independent school authorities. That was an overall increase of $20.5 million over 2012-13. The other thing is that the learning improvement fund is providing $195 million for those composition issues and some of the support needed in schools throughout the province for special needs.

This year we added an additional $15 million to that, to top that up, again as part of the overall program. We have increased the funding for special needs, as I've just indicated, and the challenge is that the high-incidence are in the block, as opposed to having been pulled out. That was a change made a couple of years ago.

R. Fleming: Chair, could I ask for some numbers that the ministry tracks on the number of special needs students and what the trend has been? Has it actually increased?

[1345]

I realize that changes have been made. I'm wondering if "gifted students" — that level, classification — are still counted and included under the total number of special needs students in the system.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I would like to just give some figures to the member. In the funding level, the FTEs in level 1…. We have dependent handicapped at 538 and deaf-blind at 64, for a level 1 total of 602. In the moderate-to-profound intellectual disabilities, we have 1,818. That's a level 2. In physical disability or chronic health impairment, 7,422; visual impairment, 316; deaf and hard of hearing, 1,012; autism and ASD at 6,745. The level 2 total is 17,313. In intensive behaviour interventions and serious mental illness, in the level 3 category, we have 7,049.

When you look at those numbers.... I don't have the previous year to tell you if there's been an increase, but my understanding is that those numbers are relatively consistent. We can provide the member with details of previous years and if there has been a significant increase, which I don't believe there has been.

R. Fleming: I accept the.... I thank the minister for the student numbers there. I want to move on to resource
[ Page 3262 ]
teachers for these students.

The numbers I have in 2001 are 4,051.5 full-time educator positions, which drops to 3,446.5 FTEs in 2007. The latest numbers I have, and I'm wondering if the minister can update that, is that resource teachers for these students now total 3,299 FTEs — in 2012. That's a fairly precipitous drop.

I think the minister has endeavoured to get numbers as to what's going on with special needs students, but let's for the time being assume that they're stable. In fact, I think the literature suggests they may be increasing.

I want to see if the minister has any numbers to show whether this decline of about 800 resource teachers from 2001 to 2012 is a trend that is increasing for students in this category.

[1350]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Just so that the member opposite.... Special education teachers: in 2001 there was a ratio of one teacher for every 153 students and now one teacher for every 163 students.

What that doesn't account for is the increase in education assistants in classrooms, where in 2000-2001 we had 6,600, and today we have 9,374, or a 42 percent increase. As the member, I'm sure, is aware, our attempt there is to provide more in-classroom, hands-on support for special needs students while maintaining their involvement in a regular classroom. We think that's of benefit to these students and, actually, to the other students in the classroom as well.

R. Fleming: I want to just continue on the learning resources for special needs students. We just dealt with teachers. I want to move on to counsellors and see, again, if there are some current numbers updating the ones that I have.

There has been a decrease in counsellors who serve this population of students. In 2001 there were just under 1,000. I think 989.6 FTEs is the 2001 figure I have. In 2007 that's decreased to 915.8, according to the ministry data. Then by 2012 it has dropped further, to 872 FTEs.

Is there a number for the most recent year? Is that trend increasing, where counsellor supports for the various categories of special needs students with the supplemental funding that goes with it...? Is that continuing to decline?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I want to provide the following figures for the member. In 2001 we had one counsellor for every 669 students. Today we have one counsellor for every 613 students. We have reduced the number of students for every counsellor. But as the member knows, they do not just deal, of course, with special needs students; they deal with the entire student population. Part of that is to ensure that every student has opportunity for access to a counsellor.

I would remind him, as well, that that's not a decision made by the ministry. Those are decisions made by local school boards as to where they put their priorities.

R. Fleming: I want to just ask the minister for some updated data on average class sizes. I have a table that begins in the 2007-08 year and runs through to 2011-12. Again, I suspect the most recent information is 2012-13, although there may be preliminary information that's even more recent.

Just to begin with kindergarten, average class size in 2007-2008 is 17.4 students per instructor. By 2011-2012 that had risen to 18.5 students per instructor. Again, this is average class size, so there are some outliers in either direction.

I'm just wondering. Looking at a long-term trend, it did increase every year for five years, but the most recent year I have is 2011-12 for kindergarten. Then I'll ask him just to update my information on subsequent grades.

[1355]

Hon. P. Fassbender: In 2000-2001 the overall educator FTE was 36,113.3, and the enrolment was 598,934.5, for a ratio overall of 16.6. In 2013-14 the educator FTE is 32,658, the enrolment is down to 540,005, and the ratio is 16.5. That's the overall ratio. When you look at kindergarten in 2005-2006, K was 17.7, and today, in 2013-14, it is 19.3.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister the same question as it relates to grades 1 to 3. He went to the 2005-2006 number as the baseline, and I wondered if he could update the number for the most recent year that it's available.

Again, I note that in grades 1 to 3, which are critical early years for reading skills and establishment for the middle learning years, where other skills build upon reading to writing and thinking, the class size trend is, again, to grow — a little bit, admittedly. But this is an area where class size restrictions are very popularly supported not just by the research literature but by parents and are also the subject of negotiations and all the rest of it before him. I'm just wondering if he can update those figures.

Hon. P. Fassbender: In 2005-2006 the ratio was 20.8 in grades 1 to 3. I may as well do all of them, so he doesn't have to ask me for the other grades. Grades 4 to 7 is 26.3. Grades 8 to 12 was 25.0.

In 2013-14 in grades 1 to 3, a minor increase to 21. 5. Grades 4 to 7 is 25.7, so there has been a slight reduction. And grades 8 to 12 is 23, which is a reduction of two to that ratio.

I do also want to point out for the member that one of the things that the ministry works very hard at with the school districts is the outcomes and the learning outcomes in those categories. Across the board in British
[ Page 3263 ]
Columbia we are doing very well by any measure when we look in other provinces or around the world. What we're seeing is that the quality of programs and the performance of students have indeed, across most of the spectrum, increased.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about government's response, working with school districts, to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling — not the one he's probably thinking of but the Moore decision, with British Columbia and the North Vancouver school district as the respondents.

This was a case, just to refresh him, where the Moore family had an extremely dyslexic son. They took the government and the school district to court, and the ruling was against the government, having been deemed to have not provided the student with an equitable education.

I'm just wondering, since that decision, how the funding responsibilities of the two co-defendants have been worked out. Is it the school district that has had to pay, based on the implications of that decision, or is it government that has stepped up and assisted districts to deal with the legal ramifications?

[1400]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The information that the member has, the resolution of that case…. North Vancouver has their own independent counsel, and they're responsible for that. I'm not going to go deeper into that particular issue beyond that. But we have informed all school districts, of course, of the ruling. We've asked them to look at their practices as a result of that, and that is indeed happening.

R. Fleming: I'm just wondering if there have been additional funds provided, as a result of that decision, by the province to school districts who have been advised of the implications of the ruling and may have responded to the ministry that there are additional costs that have flowed from the legal implications of that ruling. Have there been additional budgetary items that the ministry has provided?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The answer is no, we have not. We've not changed our funding mechanisms as a result of that particular case. Again, in this particular case it is between the school district and the plaintiff, and the school district is dealing with it.

R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I wanted to switch gears a little bit and ask him a question about the Education Advisory Council. I have searched, I think exhaustively, to find a current list of appointees and have been unable to find it — in part because, I guess, the stakeholder organizations provide the name of the appointee to the ministry rather than the other way around, which makes sense. But I do wish to ask the minister about the Education Advisory Council and when the last time they met was.

Hon. P. Fassbender: We have just recently received the appointee from the BCTF. The other organizations have done the same. I don't have the list of all of their appointments with me today, but we can provide that to the member. As he knows, we do look to those organizations that are members to appoint their own people.

We changed the appointment criteria for the BCTF. They asked that they be just simply able to appoint one individual from the list of people that they had, and we said that for this year we were prepared to do that.

We will provide to the member the list of all of the appointees.

R. Fleming: Okay, I appreciate receiving the updated list. The main part of my question was around when the last meeting of the council was.

I know that the council has interesting terms of reference. It advises the minister on overall policies in the education system, including curriculum and assessment. Those are pretty active areas in his ministry right now and a big part of the service plan and education plan.

[1405]

It also gives advice on the teaching profession, looking at some of the trends and areas of interest with the teaching profession. That's advice that is potentially very useful for the minister. System government is another, and finances.

Could the minister advise when the council last met?

Hon. P. Fassbender: We're just getting the information on when they met the last time. But I think what's critical in this is that the member is absolutely right. There are a number of stakeholders, BCTF being one of the critical ones.

I personally have had a number of meetings with the BCTF executive, not bargaining but talking about learning outcomes and the future of education. They've been actively involved in things like the curriculum redesign. We've had teachers from all over the province that have participated in that.

We meet with the individual stakeholders as required on an ongoing basis, and then the council itself meets. I'm getting the date of the last meeting. What we're doing is looking at this entire process for input.

What's critical to the ministry, as we move forward in terms of re-engineering our education system and looking at new curriculum, is that we have specific groups that look at some of the key areas that the member has talked about. We're going to continue to do that. I don't have the date yet, but we'll provide you with the date when they last met. It should be on its way shortly.
[ Page 3264 ]

R. Fleming: I'll just come back to those questions when the date is available.

I wanted to ask the minister about, I think, one of the most contentious issues right now between the ministry and school districts on the funding shortfall issue. That is the letter that was sent about three weeks ago by the deputy to school districts about a change in policy around seismic capital funding.

The letter outlined that immediately, in the next fiscal year, districts — some, not all, although it didn't specify which would and which wouldn't — would now be required to contribute 50-cent dollars to seismic projects and that potentially the government would take what they consider "surplus funds" that are held by districts and direct them towards ministry projects that are on the seismic capital project list.

The minister has heard from a lot of trustees. I know he was at the B.C. School Trustees last week. He's received a lot of feedback from superintendents and others. Is this policy still in effect? What is the status of it? I've heard a couple of different messages about whether in fact school districts will have to live up to the letter from the deputy or whether perhaps there are some changes being contemplated as we speak.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think it is really important that there is some real clarity here as to what the program was.

[1410]

As the member is aware, the Auditor General, in reviewing government finances in 2010, had an extensive report that…. It was felt, and that was reinforced in March of this year, that there may be capital dollars, surplus dollars, in public agencies that could be used to fund capital, with the sole purpose of keeping our GDP-to-debt ratio as low as possible.

We were directed, through the budget process and by the Minister of Finance, to work with every single district on projects that were coming up for review that had not already been allocated. For any district that has a project that's been approved, where the funding has been identified and it's either in process or already in construction, there is no expectation for school districts to contribute.

For new projects that haven't had project scope and so on, our staff works with the district staff on a case-by-case basis and reviews their financial position. And if, indeed, there is the ability for a school district to contribute up to 50-cent dollars, we would work through that process. Then when submissions go forward for approval to Treasury Board, it would reflect those discussions.

I think the key here — we have said this to every school district since, and I think it was perhaps a lack of clarity on that at the time — is that we will work with every district on a case-by-case basis.

Seismic projects will not be pushed back or stopped. What we will do is work with them and look at what the needs and the opportunities are. The essence of the program is simply that if we don't have to borrow a dollar, we shouldn't be borrowing that dollar. That is important to manage our fiscal environment, and that was the directive that came through the budget and the Minister of Finance.

I will say this. We've had some experience in the last little while since it was announced. We are going to be meeting with the Minister of Finance and his staff again to just explore what we've learned out of it. If we need to make modifications, we will look at that.

The bottom line for most districts is that no one is expected to stop approved, high-risk seismic projects that are already in the stream, nor is there an attempt to claw those back or to put them on hold, if they've been approved, in order to secure that additional support.

R. Fleming: Well, what's interesting is that the Auditor General's report — I went back and looked at it — on working capital management deals with cash flow management. It does not make a suggestion that school boards are sitting on a pile of excess surplus funds. It looks at the flow and pattern of expenses and observes a number of snapshots of what the balance sheet looks like throughout the year. It's an enrolment-based organization, and it has patterns of expenditure in the calendar year.

This is something quite different that the ministry is pursuing. It's a change in capital funding. It's a change in the parameters of the often-announced, sometimes re-announced, seismic school capital program, and it came with no consultation with school districts. A letter to school districts, I think, is barely three weeks old.

I'm happy to hear that the minister is talking to the Ministry of Finance now, but school district leaders that I've talked to wish they'd had the privilege of having a conversation with the ministry before this letter was issued. They wish the ministry had followed its own principles and the guidelines that they signed onto in the document of co-governance, which obliges the ministry, when they make a significant change in policy, and I think this qualifies — that they be consulted. They weren't consulted in this instance.

The reality is that if this change goes through and some districts are required to provide up to 50-cent dollars for seismic capital projects which formerly were 100 percent covered by the province…. They have their own inventory of capital projects which they wish to pursue. It might be school improvements, getting rid of portables. It might be dealing with aged infrastructure that is no longer functioning. It may be an addition to a school — all of those things. They will have to reprioritize and put in abeyance — for years, potentially — those capital projects that they have worked on in their own school districts.

[1415]

Does the minister get that? Does he understand that
[ Page 3265 ]
these aren't surplus funds? These are dollars that have already-identified commitments attached to them. I know he's heard it from school district leaders.

What's the position he's taking to the Minister of Finance? I can understand it if it's the Minister of Finance who's driving this and is interested in seeing if they can reduce borrowing by grabbing what they see as surplus funds at hand. But I think he's had enough explanation now from superintendents and secretary treasurers and trustees that that's not the case. They're looking for him to convince the Minister of Finance otherwise.

So where is this at? Is this going to be a pressure that they face in the current fiscal year, or is this something that is going to be discussed over a longer period of time? In other words, is the consultation finally going to happen? It should have happened up front before it was put into a letter, but will it happen?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I will say to the member opposite that I've had lots of discussion and lots of feedback. One of the reasons we're sitting down with the minister at some point and talking about the implementation of this and some of the things we've learned from it is that any new program does have unique attributes to it. We've learned a number of things.

But I will say this, and I want to make it very clear. We know, based on the numbers that we have as of June 30, 2013, that school districts have a combined total of $1.1 billion in cash and short-term investments. Now, I am not saying that those dollars are not intended for very worthwhile projects. That's why we will sit down with every school district.

I should introduce Joel Palmer, who is the director of our capital division. Joel, I know — because I've been in a number of meetings with him — meets virtually on a daily basis with school districts.

We go through their fiscal plan — what they may have on deposit, what it's earmarked for — so that when submissions do go forward to Treasury Board and a recommendation is made for a particular project and the funding of that, which may or may not include a contribution from that district, it's bathed in a very solid business case that we've gone through with the district.

Yes, I think that there may be instances, and there have already been some, where districts have had to look at their priorities and say: "Well, this is not a priority, because this seismic project" — or whatever it might be — "is a priority for us, and we are prepared to contribute." We've had some very creative discussions on that, which I think is a very healthy thing. I think school districts are learning something, as are we in the ministry. But we are not forcing districts and putting key priorities back because of that.

I know, as minister, that when I go to Treasury Board with a submission, we — Joel when he's with me, the deputy when he's with me — are asked hard questions, because as a provincial government, we have the same responsibility to look at all of our priorities, our funding envelope that we have, and how we can balance those priorities or reprioritize them.

[1420]

For me to suggest that there may not be some new priorities that should be looked at would not be candid in this discussion. But in my meetings with districts I've explained to them that this is not something that is either-or. It's, "Let's sit down and go through your fiscal envelope. Let's look at all of your priorities. Let's work together" — as the ministry does on all of the issues that we face in our co-governance role.

The member talks about our co-governance document. It is probably the weakest definition of "co-governance," quite honestly, that I've seen.

The member was at the AGM, where I made it very clear to boards that we're going to detail how we are going to move forward on co-governance in a much more robust and effective way. One of the reasons that we're going to develop that together is that there are no ambiguities then. Even communication protocols will be spelled out and not open to individual interpretation. We clearly outline what our roles are, how that works, what the communication protocols would be.

I think the member was there when I apologized to the school districts that I wished I could have had more time but that the pressure of a balanced budget and the importance of that to the economy of British Columbia and to all of our futures, including theirs, did not allow that. By the same token, we are working with them individually. We'll continue to do that.

R. Fleming: Just to go back into this, there are a number of examples. School district 63 is one that has been fairly outspoken on this, but it's going to play out similarly. Part of their concern about this change in policy on the 50-cent dollars for seismic contribution — where previously it was a provincial responsibility — is the issue that I think I mentioned. It means that other projects that the district has that they're going to fund internally are going to be deferred, potentially for a long time.

There are two concerns here. One is that it will lead to an inefficient use of capital dollars. When you're opening up a school building to do a seismic improvement where there is also a locally funded project to improve classroom space, update mechanical systems or otherwise modernize the buildings — the minister will know that some schools in British Columbia are in desperate need of a refresh — what is going to actually happen if the ministry changes the policy and says, "By the way, you now have to pay 50 percent," say on a $4 million seismic upgrade?

The $1 million internally funded local project is not going to happen, and the school district is going to be required instead to contribute $2 million to the seismic
[ Page 3266 ]
upgrade. So you're going to get less capital improvement going on — that's both for seismic safety as well as improving the building — and you'll potentially have two construction projects that are staggered over a couple of years. That's inefficient.

Or potentially, you'll just see those opportunities being forgone altogether. You won't see B.C. schools improve to a standard that the districts have determined are the ones that they want to meet.

Does the minister understand this particular problem with the sudden about-face in the policy change that was announced by the deputy three weeks ago, and is he sympathetic to that view? Does he understand that there could be inefficiencies or lost opportunities to improve school buildings right across British Columbia?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I love short answers. The answer is yes. I'm sympathetic to it. However, what I will say is that's why we're working with every district. We're looking at the priorities.

As I said, when a submission goes forward to Treasury Board to release funds, we will have a business case that we've worked on with the district. Quite honestly, we're not out to suggest that we should put good money after bad and not do something. But also, one of the things we've learned through our seismic program is that there has been the potential for project creep, where we've had a designated project outlined for seismic and as we move into it, districts have said: "Oh, by the way, we'd like to do this and we'd like to do that." And sometimes it gets put into the seismic envelope, which is not what it was intended to do.

[1425]

Again, I think the really important thing here is that we will work and are working with every single district administration, going through the priorities, looking at what they have in terms of priorities. Where it makes sense, we will work with them, and I will advocate as minister a solid business case that goes forward to Treasury Board, whatever that funding participation level may or may not be.

R. Fleming: Another angle to this is a claim on so-called surplus funds. Districts right now are trying to approve budgets — balanced, as required under the School Act — and many of them are relying on the so-called budgeted surpluses that are in the current fiscal year and will carry forward into the next one to balance the next fiscal year's budget.

In greater Victoria school district 61 the shortfall they've identified is $17 million. The planned budget "surplus funds" to be carried forward next year is $8.3 million. The risk here is that school districts will pass balanced budgets as required by law, as early as April 30 — in fact, I think school district 61 passed theirs last night through all stages of the reading; other districts are very close to passing balanced budgets as well — but they're all using the cash that's now been circled, identified and targeted by the deputy's letter from your ministry.

Is there a chance here that in good faith…? They've passed balanced budgets, in accordance with practices used for a number of years. When you make a decision, and let's just say it's the wrong one — that the Minister of Finance and cabinet don't agree with your sympathetic view to back down on this — is there a potential threat that some districts are going to have this money scooped out of their budgets in the middle of the year?

Hon. P. Fassbender: First of all, there is no threat involved in this at all. There is no intent to put districts into deficit. I've clearly stated to the member that we are working with districts. We're looking at their entire funding envelope, and we will work with them in whatever goes forward in the way of new projects. Seismic upgrades will be based on a solid business case.

We will not be clawing back moneys from districts in order to meet this outcome. The Minister of Finance was very clear in the budget. And this does not just affect school districts. This is across the public sector, where we are looking at maintaining our triple-A credit rating and looking at balancing our budget in the interests of all taxpayers. And there is only one taxpayer.

Any dollars the districts have accumulated that have been prioritized, we'll work with them, we'll look at it, and we'll find a formula that will work for them but also meets the spirit of what we're trying to do provincially in managing a provincial budget and economy in the interest of every single taxpayer.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could ask the minister to outline the AFG facility grants for the coming fiscal year and what level they are compared to last year.

[1430]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The amount is $110.5 million. Added to that was another $7.1 million, which we have added to help fund PLNet, and that will be of benefit to every single school district across the province.

R. Fleming: One of the things that has changed since we had the pleasure of estimates eight or nine months ago is the Pacific Carbon Trust. It no longer exists. Government wound that up.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Regardless, there had been a concession in the school sector, which I think was quite progressive, to allow districts…. Instead of sending their money ultimately to, in many cases, Fortune 500 companies that would receive essentially public funds to offset their carbon footprints, it's allowed to be retained in an account managed by the
[ Page 3267 ]
Ministry of Finance.

I'm just wondering. Upon dissolution of the Pacific Carbon Trust, has there been any change around that fund that exists within the Ministry of Finance? If not, is the fund still growing through the carbon levy that is charged to districts? The carbon offset requirement, I think, was $25 a tonne. Is the fund growing? What's the balance of it? Who is managing it? Has any of that changed upon the dissolution of the Carbon Trust? I guess that is the bundle of questions.

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member opposite is well aware, the program within the school districts, which has now been expanded to a number of other provincial agencies…. The money we collect in it is still ongoing. I would refer you to the Ministry of Finance for details on that, because there are a number of components that come into it, and I don't have those figures.

What we have done by practice, as I'm sure you're well aware, is ensured that the districts received back at least what they contribute, if not more — and in many cases, it has been more — in allocations towards capital projects.

R. Fleming: One of the most pleasant parts of my job as critic for Education is I get to read a lot of what the minister says in transcripts. I want to go back to the seismic upgrade issue.

In a CBC Victoria interview on the 28th of March, the minister is quoted as saying, "I'm absolutely confident we're going to stay on target," meaning the 2020 target to have remaining schools in B.C. seismically upgraded. Then two and a half weeks later, CBC Victoria, 17th of April, same question from the host: "Will have to extend the deadline again?" The minister says: "We may have to."

Something changed in two and a half weeks, where you were absolutely confident, and then you suggested that we may have to change the target dates.

I'm just wondering, for all of the people watching at home: will the seismic schools in British Columbia, all the outstanding ones, be upgraded by the 2020 deadline?

[1435]

Hon. P. Fassbender: What I've learned since I've been minister and been briefed on seismic projects — looking at not just target dates but also target budgets — is that, number one, when this program was announced, there was very little body of knowledge in the world on the complexity of seismic projects like this. Over that time we've learned a lot, as the member is probably aware if he reads other transcripts of my interviews.

The budget has grown from $1.5 billion, which was the original budget, to $2.2 billion already, with the projects that are still outstanding, which number about 106, representing another $600 million of potential costs for seismic upgrades.

We have an award-winning seismic program, working with the professional engineers and the geoscientists at UBC. We've learned a great deal. The challenge for me — to say to you that we can finish it by 2020…. I can't do that, because we don't do this alone.

We have to wait for school districts to provide us with a detailed report on each of the projects, the implications. Our staff works with them in developing the scope. I can give you a very good example: the Vancouver school district, where the majority of the outstanding projects still are. We're working with them right now to develop a project office to manage these complex issues, to ensure that all of the due diligence that needs to be done is done so that we can then start scoping out the sequence.

I'm not going to say we can or cannot meet the date. I suspect the complexity in the number that we still have is a huge challenge. But we're committed, again, to work with districts. That's why we're working so closely with a district like Vancouver, which has many — I believe the number is 69 — projects left to be done. We've been waiting to get the project office scoped and agreed to by the Vancouver school board. Once that happens in a co-governance role on that project office, we'll be able to start looking at the business case for each of those projects.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the minister's response. But I would ask him…. If government, since it has moved off its original timeline, which has been reiterated a number of times since the first announcement…. I believe it was a $1.3 billion program at that time. I think we're going back to 2004, 2005.

It's important to have timelines. You could well imagine that nobody wants to be last in line for a seismic project, but somebody is going to be last. They need to know how many years this is potentially being pushed back now, since the minister has conceded that 2020 is no longer a viable date to complete the 102-odd high-priority seismic upgrades that remain here on school districts that are on the fault line. It's not good enough to have no timeline.

I appreciate that he feels that the government's timeline is no longer realistic. Who is going to be responsible? When might a new, more suitable timeline that identifies the capital resources, which I think it's fair to say are unfunded at this point in time….? When is that going to be completed, and who's heading up that effort?

[1440]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think by the time I finish my tenure as Minister of Education I'm going to be a partial seismic expert. But what the reality is.... Let's take the school board in the city of Vancouver. There are ten or 15 projects that are fully funded. They're ready to go, from the government's point of view. We have absolutely no project scope or information from Vancouver school board. That is why the project office is so absolutely critical to drill into those.
[ Page 3268 ]

The other challenge is that if we were to finish all of the school district of Vancouver's seismic projects, that would mean we'd have to do ten a year. When you think of the scope of that work, the disruption to students as a result of that work — if we were to do ten a year in order to meet the deadline — that becomes a very challenging situation. We are not delaying. Safety and health of students are absolutely a priority for all of us. It's a priority for school districts; it's a priority for government.

Capital money on seismic projects has never been an issue. It has been the projects' scope, the definition of each and every individual project, getting the proper engineering work done. As I said, we have learned a lot that we didn't know when we started. We are working diligently with the engineers, with the geoscientists, with every school district that has projects on the books and trying to do that.

The biggest one, the most complex, is the city of Vancouver. We are going to continue with them in the project office to do everything we can to move them ahead for the safety of the students. That's true not only in Vancouver but the other school districts in the province.

R. Fleming: The seismic upgrades that are required in the schools. I know they've been re-evaluated as recently as a few years ago by the engineering profession. That was very useful for school districts and the ministry and everybody involved, because it reclassified a number of them and had valuable re-evaluations there.

It's spending that nobody really likes to do, because all you are doing is maintaining what you already have, essentially, and making it safe. But it's absolutely vital because we're dealing with a school-age population in public buildings that must be kept safe.

We've had recent reminders of that with some fairly high-magnitude seismic events that, fortunately, were far enough off our shores that they didn't cause any loss of life. The imperative is there. Nobody's questioning that, I don't think. But I think there are some problems, perhaps, for the government on where to identify the capital for it, and I'm sure that's not without its own internal pains.

The most recent announcement I've seen from government is that the next 45 school upgrades, or the most recent ones, cost $584 million. I don't have the press release in front of me, but I'm hoping the minister can remember that announcement. It was $584 million attached to 45 upgrades that will be completed by 2017. Those are the ones that are in the approved category or proceeding or ground is broken.

There are 102 that have yet to be accounted for. They've not been approved by his ministry, and they are expected to cost $600 million. These'll be done in future years, after the next tranche of schools are made seismically safe — those 45.

[1445]

How can it be the case that 45 schools, which cost almost $600 million to upgrade, will cost the same as the next 102, which will cost $600 million as well? It doesn't make sense to me that that budget is at all realistic for the last 102 schools to be upgraded.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I never like to correct the member opposite, but I will. It's actually 104 schools, not 102.

As the member is probably aware, because I know he pores over all the documents, we have focused on and targeted initially the H1 and H2 schools, which are the most complex and at the highest risk, that require the greatest amount of funding, because they are the priority. Like everything, we would like to get them all done within the same period of time.

Capital dollars have never been a problem on the seismic upgrade. Now we're moving into the H3s, and we're looking at where they are not as complex. Therefore, they don't require the same amount and level of funding. That's where the difference comes in.

Our priorities have been the highest-risk. We're now moving into the other ones, and it stands to reason, based on our experience and the great due diligence that the engineers and the geoscientists have done working with us, to identify a much more realistic scope on costing, especially on the lower-risk ones.

R. Fleming: The minister just said that capital dollars for seismic projects have never been a problem. I think that goes back to the question around why the government is suddenly changing the seismic capital funding policies, which are seeking 50 percent contributions from school districts that can't afford them.

We've talked a little bit about what kinds of things might be displaced, how the raiding of cash balances, which the minister has referred to — although he committed to refer to it, for the last time, as surplus funds last weekend…. Those are going to cause problems balancing the budget next year if, indeed, the ministry insists on pushing this to its ultimate conclusion and takes the 50-cent dollars. But also what could be displaced are routine maintenance and the deferral of projects in order to fund provincially imposed major capital projects.

What operating priorities is the minister prepared to see school districts forgo in order to divert the funds, the 50-cent dollars, to major projects? And which ones is he unprepared to let school districts consider to find the money to contribute to this policy?

Hon. P. Fassbender: You know, I have many things to do as minister. One of them is not to decide on individual districts' projects and their priorities, so I'm not making a judgment call on what should be kept or what shouldn't be kept. That is why we sit down and work with every single district on their priorities, look at why they've established those priorities, how they intend to fund them and how we can work together to meet the needs of the
[ Page 3269 ]
province, as well, but to ensure that their budgets are allocated appropriately, as we have to ask ourselves to do the same thing.

Our staff — and Joel in particular, I know — meets with every single district that has a project. We look at the business case. As I've said, when it goes forward for final approval….

[1450]

I again will say, and I think the member keeps repeating it, that we are not forcing districts to do anything. We are working with them to come up with a solution that meets the needs of the single taxpayer that we all serve and also the life and safety of students.

Seismic projects have always been a priority because life and safety issues are the key priority. They will continue to be that.

Other projects will fall in to a priority list that the district will decide. We will sit down with them, and we'll continue to be a partner in moving projects ahead as they're necessary.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister….

The Chair: Did you wish to recess?

R. Fleming: Just a couple more questions and then I will ask for a brief recess, unless the minister beats me to it.

Education Advisory Council. I'm just wondering if the dates of the most recent meetings are available.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The last meeting of the Education Advisory Council was on March 17, 2013.

One other item that I'd like to read into the record. The question was asked about the municipal pension increase. It is 0.7 percent or $818,000 for the year '14-15. There are no further increases planned. That is the municipal. That's the CUPE workers. That's not the teachers. I gave you the teachers figure earlier in the questions.

R. Fleming: One of the things that strikes me as interesting about the Education Advisory Council is that it has all of the stakeholders there. It's a body for the minister to assign a special consideration of issues for policy advice — exactly what we've just been talking to around the seismic funding question. It seems to me, after all the talking we've just done, that really what government is trying to do is stretch its seismic program, which is running into some funding problems.

The Education Advisory Council last met March 17, 2013, so about 14 months ago. According to the School Act, in section 171(3), the statutory requirement is that this body "must meet twice annually or more frequently."

Why has the Education Advisory Council failed to meet in the last 14 months when it should have met at least twice or more frequently according to the legislation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The reality of this committee is that it's very large. Trying to find a date to get everybody available for the meetings has not lacked challenges.

[1455]

Our ministry has been moving toward a more robust dialogue with all of the stakeholders, whether it's the superintendents association, BCASBO or the BCTF. I think I mentioned to the member earlier that I've had at least four or five meetings with the BCTF executive. Our staff has met. Our curriculum review committee has met with the BCTF and engaged other stakeholders from around the province.

I think one of the issues that we are looking at with our new process that we're moving forward is what we're going to do with the BCSTA in defining our co-governance role. We will be looking at the value of a committee that large and that complex — and it's perhaps difficult to see it function effectively — by doing it in a much more streamlined way.

I have no other answer than: we haven't been able to get them together. But we continue to meet with all of the members and the stakeholders that are represented in that group.

R. Fleming: I think I would like to ask the minister if there are any penalties for not fulfilling this statutory requirement. It's very clear in the School Act that this body must meet at least twice per year. So perhaps he can advise if there are any penalties. Or perhaps he could even extend the "get out of jail free" card for any of these stakeholders — be it the Principals and Vice-Principals Association, CUPE or the B.C. School Trustees Association — if they should run afoul of any statutory requirements of them in the School Act.

I'm just wondering, though. I am actually curious as to whether there are any penalties on the part of the minister for not following his own legislation.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, there are no penalties. I thought maybe I'd get 40 lashes or whatever. I hate to disappoint the member opposite.

I think what's at the essence of this is that there are organizations or structures that are set up in legislation that at the time are seen to be an opportunity for robust input and effective input to the future of education. I've met with the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association twice myself. I've met with BCASBO. I've met with the superintendents association. I've met with the BCTF. I have met with BCCPAC, which represents the parents in the province.

What I have found and what I've heard from a number of them is that that kind of direct contact with the minister and the ministry staff on an ongoing basis is of much more value to them in terms of input and oppor-
[ Page 3270 ]
tunities. Is it a perfect system? Probably not. But I'm the kind of person…. I think logic sometimes says: "If the meetings aren't really giving you what you want, or for the parties that are a part of it, then find another way to get the job done."

What we're doing is working very hard to get the job done with all of our stakeholders as we start to chart a new course for the future. That may mean changes to legislation at the appropriate time to reflect the new reality of where we are.

R. Fleming: Well, I think maybe with the 40 lashes in hand, we should look to a recess. I would just say to the minister that I think, as he well knows, that lawmakers, especially, should follow the law, but unlike citizens, we actually get to change the law if we want to.

Fair enough. We could defer a discussion on the policy council for another day, if it ever does come before the House in the form of a bill.

Chair, if I could ask for a ten-minute recess, in part so I can find my BlackBerry charger. We can attend to a little bit of business and come back here, if that's okay.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. This committee stands recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:59 p.m. to 3:12 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask about offshore schools, which have been running since approximately 1997. These are Dogwood-certified offshore programs that teach the B.C. curriculum abroad. A lot of these are in the Asia-Pacific region.

I wanted to ask the minister about some recent policy changes that I think took place in 2013 that may have some unintended consequences. Obviously, we have an interest in marketing B.C. education abroad — all of the benefits that flow from teaching foreign nationals in their country, who may eventually build businesses or come to have trade relationships or add benefits either from business or seeking citizenship in British Columbia and in Canada. That is not to say that there shouldn't be oversight. It's about striking a balance in terms of availability as well as maintaining quality.

But there was a policy change that I wanted to ask the minister about. In B.C. a high school student, for example, gets a blended grade based on exam results and coursework. Generally, it's 20 percent exam, 80 percent coursework, except for English 12, as I understand it.

That was the case, too, for offshore students studying for the very same B.C. Dogwood until recently. Now there's sort of a double pass-fail test only applicable to offshore students. They must pass the exam, and they must pass the coursework. In other words, it's not a blended mark. Or it is a blended mark, but they have to pass both. A domestic student can fail the exam, pass the coursework and complete the course.

I'm just wondering why this change was made — why, instead of being congruent and the same, we now have two different systems, if you like, for how a grade is achieved.

[1515]

Hon. P. Fassbender: One of the challenges was that in 2012 the ministry did undertake a comprehensive review of the offshore program, due to some serious concerns that we had. A lot of them revolved around the program quality — as an example, the actual performance that we were able to measure.

We don't have inspectors there consistently, so we can only work with data that becomes available when the inspections are done. There were variances between the performance on an ongoing basis and what the final results on examinations for the provincial exams were. That caused us a great deal of concern, because ultimately, our objective here is not just to offer a Dogwood but to make sure that it is a quality program.

So the ministry launched the new criteria, which actually will take effect next year. What we've had is ongoing discussions with the offshore providers in looking at that, and it's an ongoing job that we are doing in reviewing the offshore program to make sure, ultimately, that the quality of the Dogwood is maintained, for obvious reasons.

We're going to be reviewing it more, based on the discussions we've had now, and we will be continuing to refine that program. We've seen that other jurisdictions, as a matter of fact, are doing the same thing to ensure that the quality is maintained for every student.

R. Fleming: My understanding is that this is going to come into effect in the 2014-15 school year. The feedback…. I wonder, also, if the oversight or the inspection that might play a role in helping the government sort of get this balance right would come from the offshore program consultants. I don't know if they are maybe too conflicted to do it, but they might be somebody that would be eyes and ears for the ministry overseas.

[1520]

But the problem, I gather, is not so much math and sciences. The exam results there are strong. It's what you might expect; it's the English. The English skills and the teaching at some of these schools are excellent, but having to pass both the exam and the coursework can be tough. This may hurt enrolment at those schools abroad and then, of course, cost B.C. some students, especially when we have a goal to double international students at our post-secondary institutions in conjunction with the federal government.

Is this something that the minister would care to look at, if the concern is that the English is good and that it's
[ Page 3271 ]
strong enough that when these students do come to B.C. to study at a post-secondary institution, they succeed and do well because their spoken and written English is strong enough?

Is this something that he would look at in consultation with the sector to see if it's an overcorrection or whether there might be a way to ensure that the integrity of the Dogwood is as strong as always but that we're not necessarily losing students and scaring away enrolment?

Hon. P. Fassbender: One of the things I think the member opposite may or may not be aware of is that there are two categories. We have consultants who are basically the marketing agents for the offshore schools, and we do not rely on them to give us the information we need on the quality. We have inspectors that the province of British Columbia sends over to monitor the performance and to provide us with feedback. But we have a good relationship with the providers.

The other thing that is critical here is that roughly 20 percent of those students who graduate with a Dogwood offshore…. Only about 20 percent of them come to British Columbia. What that says to us, of course, is that the Dogwood is a very coveted graduation certificate for students that's recognized around the world.

[1525]

Students choose post-secondary education based on institutions and their ability to get scholarships or a particular area where there's…. If you took Harvard as a law school, that would probably be one of the most coveted. So a Dogwood for them is something that is recognized as one of the best around the world.

We've been totally focused in our review, and will be in our refinements, to ensure that the brand of a Dogwood remains as strong as it currently is.

Because we had some concerns, we felt it was absolutely critical, for the students offshore and for the providers, for us to be sure that we had the best information that we can have and that we do refinements of the program as required to maintain the integrity of the Dogwood. We stay focused on that. Ultimately, it is that the Dogwood is something that is recognized around the world as one of the best graduation certificates that any student can have, whether they get it here or whether they get it offshore.

The other thing that we are doing is working with the offshore providers to make sure that the English language component of theirs is as strong as it needs to be and that they refine their programs to make sure that the students that they're attracting have absolutely the best chance of success, not only in their educational journey to a graduation certificate but in their language skills and all of those other things as well.

R. Fleming: I just want to ask some questions about the service delivery project in government, beginning with congratulations to Mike McKay for being appointed strategic adviser to the minister to work on shared-service governance and other opportunities. I think most of it we'll pick up on the service delivery project, which has reported out from the procurement working group.

I'm just wondering what the costs of having someone of the talent and reputation of Mike McKay as a strategic adviser to the minister might be.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The contract with Mr. McKay is for three months, at $50,000. There is an expense allowance of a maximum of $10,000 that's attached to that for the travels that he will do throughout the province.

As I mentioned at the BCSTA AGM — I think the member was there and heard that — we have many things that we're working on in the Ministry of Education curriculum review. We're looking at shared services. We want a clearer definition of co-governance. We want to look at how we move forward as we re-engineer the education system.

I just thought it would be important, for the record, to read in the qualifications of Mr. McKay and of the person that I was looking for, because this was a sole-source contract.

First of all, that the individual needed "significant experience as a superintendent providing senior executive leadership to school district operations and management in support of student success." Mr. McKay has an amazing record in that regard throughout his career.

"Significant senior experience as a leader supporting B.C. boards of education and other strategic engagements and projects in relation to the B.C. public school sector. Experience as a school trustee or an official trustee," which he currently is in Cowichan, as the member knows.

"Significant in-depth knowledge and experience in the B.C. public school system and education sector. Significant knowledge and experience in dealing with major current issues and priorities of a broader B.C. public education sector."

[1530]

In his role as superintendent and as part of the B.C. Superintendent's Association, he has been seen as a leader and has been sought after as a speaker internationally in terms of the issues of public education.

Also, "experience in providing confidential, strategic, operational and education program and policy advice and assistance" — indeed, in his role as superintendent he has done all of those things — "and significant knowledge of the role of boards of education, superintendents, secretary-treasurers in B.C. and other Canadian jurisdictions, and a proven record to engage collaboratively in community development."

I know the member was not questioning his credentials, but I think what is important is that he does bring to the ministry — working with the ministry team and working with myself and my office — an ability to focus on those two specific areas of shared services and co-
[ Page 3272 ]
governance so that we can move that agenda ahead while we're doing all of the other things that are happening within the education sector.

R. Fleming: The minister referred to Mr. McKay as the trustee for school district 79, but, of course, what he actually is, is the administrator. He was appointed after the school board was dismissed. Is he currently...? Will he continue to serve as the administrator for that district and draw a salary, presumably from that district, in addition to the contract work that has been announced?

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Hon. Chair, thank you for assuming the duties of Chair.

Mr. McKay actually is the official trustee for that district. He is not an administrator; he's the official trustee. He is designated as the official trustee and was appointed as such. Indeed, he is not elected. He was appointed by the minister. However, he does receive a small stipend for his role as the official trustee, and that is in addition to the contract that he has with the ministry.

R. Fleming: I want to ask about Mr. McKay's work in realizing some of the potential savings that were outlined in the service delivery project. The letter of Mr. McKay's appointment, April 11, 2014, says that in addition to working on that project and strengthening co-governance, he will work on key goals like education transformation, learning outcomes and skills training. It seems like the appointment is so broad that it's almost like the deputy minister's job.

I agree that two heads are always better than one, but two heads cost more. Is there a specific set of deliverables to this contract? There are a number of issues that are so broad that there's no way they will be carried to completion in three months' time. I just want to have a better idea of what he will specifically focus in on. My understanding is that it was the service delivery project, but now I'm seeing that it's almost everything that's a strategic priority of the ministry.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Because of Mr. McKay's unique talents and experience, we did not want to limit his ability to interact with other members in the ministry, with superintendents, secretary-treasurers, trustees. He is going to be interacting with all of those.

[1535]

One of the realities, and I'm sure the member knows this, is that all of these issues are interrelated. As I said, we have a system in the province where the deputy and the other senior executive within the ministry are all working very hard on so many different fronts. Mr. McKay's role will be to intersect with those other discussions. He's not the kind of individual who we want to say, "These are the only things that you can be talking about and looking at. You need to work with our key team to make sure that we cross all of those jurisdictions and opportunities" — where his expertise will be of benefit to the province.

R. Fleming: The procurement working group finished a report outlining all the business cases for different shared procurement strategies. They identified a preferred option, which would create a separate legal entity. I think it is option 4(c) in the recommendations. This would build upon existing procurement consortiums that school districts own regionally. I think there are four of them. It would combine some of the group purchasing work that already exists — essentially, expand it to have a broader shared procurement focus and make it a legal entity.

Is that something that the minister has already decided that he is in favour of, that recommended option, and that Mr. McKay's advice would primarily be about how to do it, or is he undecided and seeking advice on whether that should move forward?

I should mention that it has the legitimacy of having most of the superintendents and school board officials and others on that side of the co-governance model in favour of it. It's just that I'm not clear if the ministry has given it its blessing yet.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The service delivery project is very complex. I think, going to a previous question that the member asked, about consultation and engagement with all of the stakeholders, this is a classic example where the ministry is taking its time to make sure that we have the best input we possibly can.

The group that's worked on this has done tremendous work. We have a number of recommendations that have come, some that are still being analyzed.

[1540]

As we move forward, whether or not we move to a legal entity has not been signed off on, but I would suggest that based on the good work, the input we've had from secretary-treasurers, superintendents throughout the province, it is probably an area where we will be moving towards. What it looks like, the criteria, I don't have yet because that recommendation hasn't been fully fleshed out. That's part of the work that is going to be going on now. We want to keep moving ahead so that we can start to realize some of those potential savings sooner than later.

R. Fleming: I think there is a lot of enthusiasm for shared services and efficiencies, obviously from school districts. They want to move on it because they desperately need the money, and they want to eliminate waste, as does any level of government, where they can identify
[ Page 3273 ]
it. They have identified some potential for savings.

I think it's probably a good idea to put on the record what the magnitude of these savings are, lest they be oversold. The analysis, the business case that was done by the procurement working group, identified something like $45 million worth of service areas where savings could be realized and $131 million of supply purchases where there could be some savings available, but they discounted that.

Of that $176 million combined, they put a realistic achievable savings number of 3 percent. Building this consortium, managing it, using the efficiencies of scale and all of those sorts of things could save $5.3 million. The sooner, the better, obviously.

We've been talking this afternoon and a little bit yesterday about some of the unfunded cost pressures that school districts face. I think this puts it in perspective. This is not a silver bullet. It's $60 million in unfunded pressures that school districts face right now. We've confirmed with the minister that unfunded teacher pensions run into the 20s of millions of dollars annually. MSP premium increases that are not funded by government, Hydro increases of 20 percent over the next three years. The rate of inflation alone erodes about $20 million worth of supply purchasing ability.

I'm just wondering if the ministry is telling school districts that this is somehow an exchange. For all of the unfunded cost pressures, they will get to keep the shared services savings — and that that's somehow equivocal. Is that the minister's view of this scenario?

[1545]

Hon. P. Fassbender: One of the challenges with any figures that are brought out…. I've never used the term to the member opposite that shared services, or a move towards better procurement, is the silver bullet for anything. Those are not words that I have used.

What I have said and what our ministry is clearly doing is looking at every way that we can to ensure that administrative costs are maximized, that we have the most efficient system that we can have in those areas, whether it be procurement or other services that I would call more there to facilitate education so that every single dollar we can save in that area is applied and put into the classroom. That is our ultimate goal.

While there is one body of work that was done on procurement and numbers were brought out, that is being analyzed along with all of the other aspects of shared services and, quite honestly, co-governance and how that works. I think every school district in the province that I've talked to is absolutely focused, as we are, on student outcomes. That's where the priority has to be. Everything we do, if I can use the term in the proper context, in the back office should be facilitating that student outcome.

We're looking at everything. That report and the great work that was done is going to be part of that overall look at shared services. We're going to continue to do that, and we are going to work with the B.C. School Trustees Association and school districts in the province to make the right decisions for the right reason. It isn't just about saving money. There are other areas of efficiencies that will have positive benefits in the classroom, as well, aside from just dollars and cents.

We're looking at all of that and working with them to make sure that when we do move ahead on anything — and whether that is the establishment of some sort of office or a legal entity that might oversee a number of those things — we want to make sure that we do all of the homework and consultation to get there.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about, speaking of cost risks, the IT replacement program for BCeSIS. I think Hansard is littered with records of back-and-forths about what a cost dinosaur that system was. Nevertheless, the replacement has been announced. We talked about this a little bit nine months ago in estimates. The Aspen student information was the winner of the RFP, not without controversy. But they have now branded the replacement as MyEducation B.C. to replace BCeSIS.

As it has been rolled out, it has been allowed to crowd out any open-source alternatives, which Saanich and other districts were given the green light to develop and then told there were criteria that were impossible for them to meet. We'll get into that, or I expect the member for Saanich North and the Islands will want to ask some questions about that.

I'm just wondering at this point in time if the minister can inform the budget estimates process as to whether the cost estimate of $10 per student from the district and $10 per student from the ministry is still accurate and if that's inclusive of all implementation costs, or if, in fact, there is an implementation budget now that it has been developed that may not be included in these budget documents.

[1550]

Hon. P. Fassbender: First of all, the $10 is still consistent. There has been no change in that.

Based on the member's comments, and with the indulgence of the member, I'd like to read something about the procurement process, because I think that sometimes comments are made that are based on innuendo or particular perspectives from someone who may have another vested interest. I'm going to read this, if I can.

"The procurement process conducted by the Ministry of Education for this request for proposal" — the RFP — "has satisfied or exceeded the general standards for government procurement in British Columbia as described in the Core Policy and Procedures Manual.

"In my opinion" — and this letter is written by the senior manager of commercial services at the procurement services branch — "the ministry fully complied with its requirements to undertake a fair, open and transparent procurement process consistent with policy, applicable legislation and trade agreements.
[ Page 3274 ]

"The opportunity was completed openly among interested vendors within Canada, free of discrimination by way of local preferences, biased technical specifications, unfair registration requirements or other discriminatory practices for non-resident suppliers. The procurement documents, particularly the requirements and selection criteria, were made available to all interested parties and vendors at the same time. All bidders were treated fairly and equally, and unfair advantages have not been extended to any particular vendor in the process.

"In preparing the RFP, the ministry dedicated considerable time and resources to ensure that the RFP fully described the ministry's business requirements. Proponents were provided with sufficient information, adequate time to fully prepare and submit their best proposals.

"It is also my opinion that the evaluation committee properly followed the evaluation process described in the RFP document. The committee applied the mandatory and desirable criteria described in the RFP objectively and consistently when evaluating each proposal. The top-ranked proponent, Fujitsu Consulting (Canada) Inc., submitted the proposal offering the best value to the ministry and, inherent in that, the taxpayers of British Columbia."

[1555]

The reason I wanted to read that in was that this was a very important decision to move from a system that was an early adopter and that definitely had its challenges but did provide a level of service to the school districts throughout the province. We wanted to ensure that the new system not only learned from that but made it as robust, as flexible and as futuristic as we possibly could.

I'm proud of the work that our ministry team did in the procurement process and the process that they followed, and I am absolutely confident that the decisions were made on the basis of good, solid business practices and in the best interests of every school district in the province.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister a little bit about some of the privacy risks around this system which arise, because it's a different kind of system. Every student is using their service card. Parents, administrators and teachers will have points of access to MyEducation B.C. — roughly a million users, I think, in total.

Other student information systems that have promised this kind of access have created some concerns for different governments around North America. I understand New York has just cancelled a student information system called inBloom because of concerns about how data is linked and used.

I'm just wondering if the minister has heard, internally from those that have been involved in reviewing the system or from stakeholders outside of the organization, about concerns around privacy of individuals — that information isn't able to be taken from this prospective system to profile individuals — and whether any corrections or assurances or steps from the vender who now has the contract are being taken to prevent that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: One of the reasons that our staff worked so hard on the procurement process and the criteria and spent as much time on it is that it was absolutely fundamental to the procurement and the design of any new system that privacy was at the heart of it. We worked closely with the Privacy Commissioner and the government chief information office, and the privacy requirements are clearly articulated in the contract.

Before the system goes live, we will do, as a result of that, a very robust privacy assessment, impact assessment, on the system. But we clearly recognize the beauty of the fact that we have had the time, and our staff worked so hard looking around the world. We've learned from some of the other challenges, and we believe that this system is absolutely going to be one of the best protected for the very reasons that the member has alluded to.

[1600]

J. Kwan: I'd like to actually ask some questions and make some comments regarding the education budget for the Vancouver school board.

As the minister, I'm sure, is aware, school trustees are now in the process of consulting with their communities and trying to finalize their budgets. Yesterday I, along with the member for Vancouver–Point Grey — and on different days, as well, my colleagues the members for Vancouver-Kensington, Vancouver-Fairview and Vancouver-Hastings — attended some of the consultative process that the Vancouver school board had hosted to get feedback from the community around their budget.

Since 2002 till now, effectively, the Vancouver school board is faced with a cumulative budget shortfall to the tune of $47 million. For this budget, the constraints are no easier than in previous years, in the sense that they're faced with an over-$11-million budget shortfall. They're faced with tremendous pressures of having to consider cutting programs. There's no easy way around it, as I'm sure all members will acknowledge. Really, there is no more fat, if you will, to be trimmed from the budget.

The programs which they were faced with having to eliminate range from the band and string program…. Many, many people spoke at the public forums around the value of those programs, and in essence, students were basically saying that the string and band program is food to their souls. Many of the students in our education system would not have access to those learning opportunities to enjoy and love music and appreciate music in that sense, had it not been provided by the school system.

Others, of course, raised the issue around the cuts to the athletic coordinator and the essential role that position plays. Students spoke ever so eloquently around the importance of sports, how it teaches them teamwork, how it engages them in activities that are productive and of their sense of achievement. I will at a later time perhaps put some comments that I had heard, directly from the students, on the public record — about what they said around the importance of sports in their lives through the school system.

Others talked about — and I looked at the budget pro-
[ Page 3275 ]
posals from the Vancouver school board — what they're looking at cutting. It pains me deeply to look at cuts to area counsellors, to look at cuts to speech-language pathologists, psychiatrists, the multicultural workers. Families came and spoke last night around the importance of that position and the ripple effect for their children and for their school system. As the minister knows — and I know the minister agrees with me — these are essential programs for our children.

If they don't have access to these programs…. Already, as it were, these programs are not as sufficient as they could be because the wait-lists are long. Many students are in the system. And I know that Vancouver is not alone. Other school districts are faced with this as well. Where children are not diagnosed, they have not had the opportunity to be assessed to determine the challenges that they face and, therefore, to have that recognition in the school system and the supports that are required.

The list can go on and on, as, I know, the minister can anticipate. In light of that, I'm wondering if the minister can advise: in the budget process, with the constraints that are there and the difficulties that school boards are faced with, what advice would the minister give to the school board?

I know that is not the minister's role. I know his answer is going to be: "I'm not going to determine what programs should or should not be cut." But on the larger question of the global budget, in light of the fact that since 2002 to now there's effectively a $47 million shortfall that the Vancouver school board has had to face, what advice would the minister have for the school board in terms of trying to meet the needs of the students that are here today?

[1605]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Let me first say that I absolutely agree that a well-rounded education that includes every aspect of what makes a whole person — that's culture and arts and all of those things — is important. I've never disputed that. I believe that.

The challenge, of course, that every school district faces is: where is the balance? What programs do they support? Which programs, perhaps, do they have to refine or tighten up?

I think it's important for the member, who perhaps may not have this information…. I'm going to do a little history here.

In 2007-2008 the Vancouver school board announced proposed budget cuts of almost $6 million, with the majority of the cuts targeting front-line services for students with special needs and other vulnerable students. On June 30 of 2008 the Vancouver school board had an actual operating surplus of $15.8 million plus.

Let's go to the 2008-2009 school year. The media reported that the Vancouver school board was projecting a shortfall of $7.083 million to $11.7 million. On June 30 of 2009 the actual operating surplus for the Vancouver school board was $16,594,264.

In 2010-2011 when we sent in a review team, according to the media reports, the Vancouver school board said it was poised to lay off dozens of staff, close at least one school and shave up to ten days from the school year, citing an $18.1 million shortfall that it blamed entirely on the provincial government.

[1610]

The Minister of Education at the time requested that the comptroller general, as a special adviser to the Vancouver school district, undertake a review and assist the board in meeting its obligations under the School Act to ensure education dollars are maximized and savings are redirected for the benefit of students. On June 30, 2011, actual accumulated operating surplus: $12,893,707.

In 2011-2012 school year, according to the board communication, as of April 27, 2011, the district was projecting a funding shortfall of approximately $8.4 million for the year. The school district began the year on July 1, 2011, with an accumulated operating surplus of $12.893 million. On March 5 of 2012 the Vancouver board of education passed an amended annual budget for 2011-2012 that indicated a budget accumulated operating surplus of $5.6 million. On June 30 of 2012 the actual accumulated operating surplus was $18.305 million plus.

The 2012-2013 school year. The following is an excerpt from a news release on the Vancouver school board's website. "In the lead-up to another challenging budget year the Vancouver school board has asked for and received a report from PwC on recommendations on potential revenue sources and cost savings to help reduce the board's projected $8 million to $8.5 million shortfall this year."

On February 26 the Vancouver school board passed a balanced budget bylaw for the 2012-2013 school year. On June 30 of 2013 the actual accumulated operating surplus was $23.342 million plus. In 2013-2014 the Vancouver school board passed a balanced amended annual budget bylaw for the 2013-14 school year.

The point I'm trying to make to the member is I'm not suggesting that the Vancouver school board doesn't have challenges. I've met on a number of occasions with the chair and members of the board and their senior staff. I fully recognize that the surpluses that they have accumulated have been earmarked for what they deem to be priority projects within the city of Vancouver and are allocated to what they see as priority for their district. I respect that. That's their job, and I would expect them to do that.

I guess the pattern, if you look at it, is that every year they say the same thing: "The provincial government is at fault." Yet they are able to find accumulated surpluses. I applaud them for that, because that's the work that they have to do.

I also recognize that one of the challenges that they
[ Page 3276 ]
face, and every school district does, is to look at capacity issues and all of the other things that affect their ability to balance their budget and to provide the services. I saw all of the news stories about the students and all of those things. To suggest that it was the provincial government that was forcing those changes is not true. I appreciate that they believe, as other districts do, that funding shortfalls and cost pressures are there. We all face them. So does the provincial government and other agencies.

I think that the Vancouver school board has done a good job every year in coming up with accumulated surpluses even when they tell the public that they are in dire straits and that students are going to suffer as a result.

J. Kwan: In fact, the Vancouver school board has had to face budget shortfalls over the last 11 years, with the exception of one year. That was, I believe, in the year of 2005-2006. Where the minister cites that there are in fact budget surpluses, let us be clear. The Vancouver school board actually had to go through exercises of reducing programs — a real, actual reduction in programming in order to meet their legally required balanced budget, as it is required by law. They have to go through that process.

[1615]

There is the situation where there are these holdback dollars, which I know the minister is well aware of. These holdback dollars, in fact, skew the numbers in the sense that they are actually money that is utilized and allocated for but to be used at a later time. So these dollars come in and do skew the numbers, but it does not mean…. I don't want the minister to go away and think that somehow these budget cuts are not real and that somehow surpluses magically appear, even though it sounded almost as if to say the school board is crying wolf — when, in fact, they don't have a budget shortfall — and that surpluses magically show up every year.

That is clearly not the case. I have gone to these budget consultations year after year after year — likewise this year, I have gone again — pleading with the Vancouver school board. They have to work within the funding that they are allocated from the provincial government. Approximately 90 percent of the funding for the school board's operation comes from the provincial government, so they have a very limited scope. They have some room where they do add extra dollars to the system through their own fundraising efforts with other measures that they have, and they try to supplement programs accordingly.

That said, though, it does not mean to say the core funding that is required to support the programs is sufficient by way of the provincial budget. It's, in fact, quite the opposite.

We looked at the documentation that they have come forward with, with the consultative process. It's a thick document. I left it downstairs on my desk. Maybe I'll get a moment to run down to grab it. It shows numerous areas where there are significant cuts that impact the composition of the class.

I know of one school, where I spoke with the administrator. I was advised that in that particular class, for that classroom, there are five students that are diagnosed as special needs at the moment and have been assessed. It has been acknowledged that they are special needs and are funded accordingly.

There are three other students that, to the expertise of the educators and administrators…. They feel that those students should also be assessed, as well, and likely would result in a special needs category requirement for those students. Those students have not yet been assessed, and there are only two more months to the school year before we're done for the school year. They've not been assessed because there's a wait-list for assessments. That's why they haven't been assessed.

Consequently, in that particular classroom those extra three students do not get the extra supports, by way of funding, to support their learning, impacting not only those students but of course all the students in the classroom as well and, of course, the educators in the system.

This is, I would suggest, a fairly regular situation, where there are long wait-lists. It's not just in Vancouver. As I travel across the province to different places, I've also met with people who've told me that they have long wait-lists in those communities, as well, where the students need to be assessed to determine what needs they have, yet they cannot get the assessment because there's a long wait-list to get the assessment done. This is the reality.

We're now talking about cutting these kinds of programs, impacting the students. The staff at the Vancouver school board meeting yesterday said very clearly that all of these cuts actually hurt the system. There's no denying it around that. These losses, the loss of this programming or the staff and so on, have real impacts and real consequences.

I hope that the minister is not suggesting that all of this exercise is for naught and, in fact, that there is somehow magically a treasure chest of money hiding somewhere in the school board system where they can just pull out and none of these programs will be cut. I hope that the minister is not suggesting that. The reality of what I see is that these program cuts are real and the impacts are real in the community.

[1620]

Let me just put on the record here what one particular student said. I thought these words were particularly moving. I thought to myself as I was listening to all of the parents, all the students and the people making the presentations: "If these words were heard by the minister, by the Premier, by the MLAs in the district, I wonder whether or not they would become strong advocates for the system and say that we must provide this funding to the school boards so that they can do their job."

Let me put these comments on the record. I asked the
[ Page 3277 ]
individual when he made them at the Vancouver school board if I may use his comments, and he said yes. He states as follows, and I would love to hear the minister's comments in response to it:

"Hello. My name is Michael Miller, and I'm a grade 12 student at Vancouver Technical Secondary. The proposed cut to the athletic coordinator position, if it goes through, will have far-reaching implications into not just the schooling experiences of students but their entire lives. I know we have heard plenty of people speak about some of the benefits of sports in general terms. I want to share my personal connection to school sports.

"School sports are not just an integral part of the school atmosphere. For some, they're an integral part of life. When I first entered high school in grade 8, I was incredibly shy and had difficulty meeting people, but I did have one thing going for me. I was a good athlete, and I had a passion for soccer.

"Sports allowed me to build lasting foundations of friendship, and it created memories that I will cherish for the rest of my life. Being a part of my school team athletics program helped my confidence and my outlook. I don't know where I would be today if school sports did not exist, but I can guarantee you I would not have had the ability to speak for my fellow students today. I'm just one of a large number of student athletes who have become better people because of their school-based sporting experiences.

"School athletics provide opportunities for children of all skill levels, social backgrounds and financial situations. The same sports that are offered by the community clubs can be cost- and time-prohibitive for many families.

"Because of the positive impact that I believe school sports and sports in general can have on people's lives, I have recently founded the sport support initiative. I present to young students in Vancouver on a few key topics: basic fitness and nutritional information, how sports have enhanced my life both physically and mentally, how students can get involved in sports, and the importance and relevance of school sports.

"What a terrible irony that the very next year for these students could be without the option of school sports. Our society as a whole, not just the school system, will be negatively impacted.

"On behalf of students, staff and the community as a whole, I encourage you to vote to promote the opportunity for all children to experience team play, fitness, health choices and sport."

This is one testimony that was presented yesterday. The athletic coordinator position is the position that they're trying to protect. Many other speakers — former coaches, people who were former teachers, people who have been retired — came back to talk about the value of that.

They spoke about the value of the existing system where teachers already volunteer their time to do the coaching and to do all of the other aspects of pulling it together. But without the coordinator…. They talked about the loss, what that would mean in terms of the competition, the teams competing with each other and so on and so forth.

They simply said that that position cannot be picked up by someone else off the side of their desk. They are already working full-time, teaching full-time, volunteering their coaching time — and then take up yet another task on the side of their desk.

Speaker after speaker spoke about that. I thought it was particularly moving where another student got up and raised the fact that it was important to hear from young people's voices themselves. They talked about the value of these programs from their perspective.

In light of that, I am curious in terms of what the minister's response might be to families and students who are articulating these points of view. I don't believe that to suggest somehow the idea is that magically, the Vancouver school board has got a treasure chest of money hidden somewhere and that, in fact, this exercise is for naught…. They don't have to cut any of these programs, because that treasure chest will somehow, along the course of the year, pop up and none of these programs have to be done away with.

[1625]

Hon. P. Fassbender: School district budgets are not without their complexity, and there are many factors that figure into that — space utilization, excess capacity — all of the issues that revolve around the actual cost of running the district and running the schools within the district.

I fully appreciate, not only with the Vancouver school board but with other school districts, the tough job of trying to look at all of those factors and all of the impact that every one of those has. Every school district, by the nature of the way we run our system in the province of British Columbia…. They have choices they have to make in that. I recognize some of them are difficult. They become very emotional, depending on a person's perspective of a particular program or initiative.

[1630]

I don't underrate the passion of the community to go to the school board and advocate for those things, as the letter that you read from someone who has benefited from a program in the past.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

I recognize not every school district makes the same choices. It isn't like every school district has an athletic coordinator. As a matter of fact, I think that may be an anomaly with Vancouver school board compared to other districts, but that is their choice.

I think what is important here is that every year we hear the same message from the Vancouver school board, and every year they have a real surplus at the end of the year, even when they have indicated that they are going to have to cut programs. Now, some of the surplus may come as a result of decisions they've made, but the reality is that they always end up at the end of the year with a surplus.

The enrolment in the Vancouver school board in 2000-2001 was 58,145. It currently is estimated at 53,746, so their enrolment is going down 4,399 students. The per-pupil allocation to the Vancouver school board went from $6,155 in 2000-2001 to $8,118 currently. Their budget in 2000-2001 was $358 million that they received from the provincial government. This year it's $436 million.
[ Page 3278 ]

So we have increased funding. Enrolment has been going down. Challenges that they face in balancing their budget and making the decisions, as I said, on a number of issues, including excess capacity and all of those things…. I have travelled throughout the province, and I have seen school districts that have grappled with the same issues. They've made some of the harder decisions and have decided to look at facilities and the cost of running those facilities as compared to providing programming, and they've made some of those choices.

I respect Vancouver school board's hard work. I respect the challenges that they have. But I also would suggest that fiscally, they have indeed seen an increase in their funding. They have made choices within the purview of the school board that have effects. I fully understand that. But those are the choices that they are charged with making.

J. Kwan: Well, I think it's interesting in terms of the minister's comments, because I have a document here from the school board. They have done their own analysis from 2002 until now in terms of their budget, of what they received back in 2002 versus now and, if they were to maintain the same service levels as in 2002, where the shortfalls are and how much they are short — which, as I said, was to the tune of $47 million.

Let me just put these figures on the record here. The Vancouver school board base operating budget for 2002-2003 was actually $415 million. They did an analysis. If they were to keep the same level of services back then to now, with all of the inflationary costs and increased costs that are often dumped onto them by the provincial government, what would be the amount needed for them to meet their operational budget?

Lo and behold, their figure, of course, shows that the current budget today would not meet the required services. What they would require in 2013-14 would be to the order of $533 million for all of those services to be maintained at the same level as 2002-2003, when in fact they only got $486 million.

Somewhere along the way — you can do the math — they have a huge budget shortfall in order to meet those programs. The only result of that is that they would actually end up having to cut the programs accordingly. I have the full document of the analysis. I don't know if the minister has it.

[1635]

When I hand the floor back to my colleagues to engage in this debate, I will run and grab the documents — maybe they've already arrived — and hand it over to the minister for his review. I think it will provide perhaps some information that the minister might not be aware of in terms of that discrepancy of where the dollars are.

I do also want to say that my constituents have asked me to actually put some information on the public record here for the minister's information. This is a letter from my constituent, where she writes and says:

"As the Vancouver school board struggles to create a budget with the limited resources allocated for 2014-15, trustees have called for public input. The board, parents and citizens are faced with terrible fiscal trade-offs — music programs versus gifted education consultants versus athletic coordinators versus counsellors versus a plethora of other valuable educational supports.

"As well, the Vancouver school board is considering more district closure days to help balance the budget, and they are not alone. The Vancouver Sun on April 17 has reported shortfalls in 15 school districts across the province. What an assault on the quality of education in British Columbia.

"As parents and citizens and supporters of Protect Public Education Now, we back all the initiatives that are under the gun, not just programs that matter to us personally, because all contribute to the healthy development of our children, our communities and our province as a whole. We want education to be funded at the level it deserves so that your government can keep its election promises, including specific pledges to reduce class size and improve class-size composition provincewide.

"If your government is to continue to claim that 'families come first' and 'a strong economy starts with a strong workforce, and that means investing in education,' then they must surely invest significantly now in these and other overdue improvements.

"In recent years education budgets have been under assault, not just because of direct funding cuts but because provincial governments have downloaded more operating costs to the school boards as well as a significant portion of the costs of seismic upgrading.

"A fully and substantially funded education system is the right of every child across Vancouver and the rest of the province. The public is taking up the call from the District Parent Advisory Council: 'invest in our children now; they are the future.'"

And it says:

"Premier, you are hearing from your families. Please listen to take action to supplement the 2014-15 education budget now before school boards across the province are forced to compromise our children's education. As taxpayers we're willing to shoulder the costs. The province cannot afford to keep adding to an education deficit that will impact future generations."

This is from one constituent. I'm sure that there are hundreds of other letters that MLAs have received like this one to their offices as well.

I also want to ask this question of the minister. According to the Statistics Canada figures quoted in the BCTF provincial government briefing — I have the link if the minister wants to look that up — B.C. ranked tenth out of the provinces and territories for percentage increase in public education expenditures per student and per capita for the last five years leading up to 2012. The figure also indicates that our province has the worst student-educator ratio in Canada, at over 16. The national average is 14.

The question to the minister is: can the minister explain these rankings? And if it is true that the B.C. government has significantly increased operational spending grants to school districts since 2001, as the government claims, how is it that we are lagging so far behind when we're compared to the rest of the country?

[1640]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Thank you, hon. Chair, for tak-
[ Page 3279 ]
ing the chair. Welcome.

One of the things that I learned early in my appointment as the Minister of Education is that when you look at figures, you can interpret them as you might. Stats Canada is very clear. They caution, even in the numbers that they do, against interprovincial comparisons, because there are significant differences between provinces and how they calculate their funding, what is in the pot and what isn't, and how those numbers are come by. So I take Stats Canada at their word that we have to be very cautious when we make the comparison.

I want to give the member a few facts. Fact 1 is we have not cut education funding over the past 12 years; we've increased it. Since 2000-2001 we've added an additional $1 billion a year to education, and per-pupil funding is at near-record levels in the province of British Columbia — looking at our funding formulas, at $8,626 per student in 2014-15. That's an increase of 38 percent since 2000-2001, when it was $6,262.

As I said, every province delivers different education programs. For example, British Columbia delivers a full-day kindergarten, while other provinces do not, so it's not fair to try and compare us to other provinces. Similarly, each province includes a variety of different factors in their funding formulas, so even the best interprovincial studies do not provide a perfect comparison.

According to Statistics Canada, between 2001 and 2011 — remembering their caution — B.C. school boards increased their total expenditures by 36 percent. This is during a time of declining student enrolment of over 70,000 students in the province of British Columbia. Compared to 2000-2001, the grants to districts today are slightly ahead of inflation, while the average per-pupil amount is well above the rate of inflation over that same period.

Another fact I'd like to give the member that you can look at. This is probably the most important factor, because it's not about charts or numbers. It's about actual outcomes for students, as the member has alluded to. Our provincial six-year completion rate increased to 83.1 percent in 2012-2013, and that's up from 76.7 percent in 2000-2001. So learning outcomes have improved, even at a time where there are suggestions that we're underfunding the system.

Over the same period of time, the aboriginal completion rate, which is the best in the country and recognized by both the federal government and other provinces, climbed to a record high of 59.6 percent, which is up from 42.1 percent. It's not where it should be. It's not that we don't need to do more work in that area, but it has been a significant improvement.

The completion rate for students with special needs — the member talked about special needs — increased to 58.7 percent, up from 33.4 percent in 2000-2001. So for those most vulnerable, we've seen an increase. We continue, through learning improvement funds and other initiatives, to put investments where composition is a challenge in classrooms. We continue to do that.

The rate for English-language learners, the ELL students, has increased to 85.8 percent from 77.2 percent.

My view of the education system is about outcomes. I recognize again, and the member has clearly stated, that there are challenges. I fully understand that balancing budgets, operating a district like Vancouver — it's complex.

[1645]

I also recognize that they have a good set of professionals, and it seems to me by their track record that even when they've had concerns, they have had, consistently every year, operating budget surpluses. So I say: "Good for you." I think that is appropriate, and I think that they're hedging for other activities and other priorities, but they're making those decisions, not the province of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I apologize to my colleagues because I know many have other questions, but let me just close with this.

The minister just finished saying that it's not about numbers, and then he went on to cite a bunch of numbers. As welcome as it is to see that there's some improvement in educational outcomes — and Lord knows we all want improvements in educational outcomes — I'll tell you this. When a student sits in the class and the educators, the professionals in that classroom, know that that child needs special support…. That child is not getting assessed. Why? Because they do not have the funding to provide the assessment. Why? Because there's a wait-list. Why? Because the global budget that's been provided to those school boards by the provincial government is deficient in ensuring that that child gets that assessment.

That child is getting left behind, no matter how you slice it. Maybe that child can get by and somehow survive, but I can tell you this. My heart tells me, and my gut tells me: that child is not living up to his or her maximum potential. The learning opportunities for that child are not all there because the system is failing that child.

There are many children in our system in that context. When the Vancouver school board has to contemplate cutting psychologists and area counsellors and speech therapy, speech-language pathologists and so on, that has an impact. Let us not fool ourselves to somehow think that those numbers make us feel that we're doing a great job, when in fact we can do better.

When the government talks about wanting to ensure that people have opportunities for jobs, that we prepare the young people for the jobs of tomorrow, as it was announced today, this is where it begins. This is where it begins, in our education system and, I would argue, even before the education system — though not in this set of estimates — in the child care provisions. I won't get into that.

I have this document here, Mr. Chair, that I would like
[ Page 3280 ]
to table and to give to the minister. In fact, it outlines the various points that I have made around the education budget, around the shortfall and their analysis of where the shortfall is at. These numbers do not lie. It is the truth. I would like to….

The Chair: Member, just a point of order. You're not able to actually table the documents, but you're more than welcome to share them at this time if you'd like.

J. Kwan: I will simply share the document with the minister across the way, with the assistance of our very able staff here.

Finally, I just want to make this final comment. We know that here in British Columbia — in fact, across the country — we're very much reliant on the immigrant population. As we're all aging — I am aging; that I know for sure — we're reliant on the immigration population to supplement our population growth.

In the Lower Mainland, in a district like the Vancouver school district, where the multicultural workers are essential because they are the lifelink — a bridge, as one delegate said yesterday at the Vancouver school board, between the parent and the school — to be that bridge for the child, there's all the more reason, especially, for them to understand how to operate within the education system here, to understand the challenges their children are faced with and how to assist their child at home as they're acquiring their language skills.

In their eloquent, eloquent speeches that were made, they talked about the importance of these multicultural workers. And they are being reduced in the Vancouver school board. That is also a reality, impacting not only the school system, in reaching into the supports for that child, but also the parents in connecting with the school, in trying to figure out how to assist their children's growth and development as well.

These are real, Minister. So it's not just about figures and what you believe the surplus to be, when in fact, at the end of the day, the school boards have to make these cuts to realize the balanced budget. That's what they have to do, as required by law. When that happens — and it's happening right now— the impacts on the students are real.

I'll just leave the minister with that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Mr. Chair, I will receive those comments. I would like to ask for a five-minute recess if we could.

The Chair: Granted. We'll take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:50 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

G. Heyman: Over the last number of weeks I've had a number of constituents come into my office to talk about their concern about the proposed budget by the Vancouver school board. The budget, of course, is driven by the requirements of the Ministry of Education to balance, as well as the funding available from the Ministry of Education.

Partly because of this and partly because of my own interest, on April 16, I attended a budget consultation at the Vancouver school board offices. It was one of a number. It was a late-evening session. The room was packed, with a full list of presenters, parents, students, educators and other people with an interest.

I just want to briefly summarize some of the communications that I'm receiving in my office. These relate to a number of the programs that are being contemplated for scaling back or elimination in order for the Vancouver school board to be able to balance the budget.

One is from an archivist at the media arts centre, who talks about going through a very troubled period of her life as a teenager, dropping out of school, living with a single mother but eventually finding a place at City School, which is a successful alternative school program in Vancouver. There are only two full-time-equivalent teachers there, and there is a proposal to cut one of them.

She said her re-engagement with school commenced with the teaching staff, who kept her attention. She believes that she owes her successful career today to the fact that she was provided with an alternative and was able to attend.

Others came and talked about the importance of the elementary band, choir and strings programs to their children, how much it meant to them and how they observed a significant shift in their children's commitment and attention and willingness to work hard.

Still others talked about what it meant to be able to have their children learn music in school and practise music in school, because they simply didn't have the financial means either to pay for it, which I think was one of the proposals of the Vancouver school board, or to afford private lessons. They talked about the pain that was expressed by their children when they were thinking they might no longer be able to learn instruments or participate in band.

Others came forward at the public hearings, in addition to this communication, and talked about the importance of the substance abuse counsellors to their children and, in one case, to their own life. There were conversations about how important a role the City School had played.

Other people came forward. These were very creative people. They're involved in the creative industries, and they talked about how school just wasn't a fit for them, but City School was their place. It enabled them to develop the knowledge and skills, as well as the social skills, that they needed to fit in more closely to a normal edu-
[ Page 3281 ]
cation program, to eventually go to post-secondary and to now have very successful careers in the creative industries.

Basically, the Vancouver school board has been faced with the elimination of the elementary band and strings programs, although I understand the school board has found money for this coming budget year. But there's an even larger budget shortfall projected for the following year, and it's unlikely that the strings and band programs will survive. I'll come to that later.

The athletic coordinator position is being proposed for elimination — a lot of concern from students who learn teamwork through athletic programs. I've talked about City School. But the staffing there, which is already very minimal, is slated to be cut in half, which many think will really mean the death of the program, a very successful program that helps to keep kids who are at risk, and other children who are having trouble socializing, in a more normal school environment in the education system.

[1700]

As well, the multicultural liaison workers — many people came from the ethnic communities to the consultation to talk about how important this was to enable them, both parents and their kids, to plug into the system.

Of course, I think it should be obvious to us what sort of a role substance abuse prevention workers play in ensuring that youth don't get off track, that they focus on their education, get the benefits of an education and become productive. There are two FTEs proposed to be cut there.

Just to get to the point, one of the things that really stood out for me on April 16 was an education researcher from UBC. He spoke about a study that he was just completing in the beneficial aspects of music training on education in general, not just on the less quantifiable aspects of the benefits of culture generally, the benefits to children of learning something new, of learning to play an instrument.

He said the study clearly demonstrates that the participation in group musical activities — and this is not true, interestingly enough, in the same way for group athletic activities, although there are obviously other benefits there — and the learning of instruments not only is good from the socialization and teamwork aspects, but it has a quantifiable, measurable improvement factor on the students' performance in every other level of their academic pursuits. In other words, it's got a multiplier effect.

My question to the minister is: has the ministry done any cost-benefit analysis of the long-term negative cost impacts to the economy, the productive participation of youth, the integration of kids at risk and the integration of children from immigrant communities into the school system in improving their educational outcomes and their ability to participate in the economy and in lessening any future reliance on social supports?

It seems to me that while balancing the budget through some measures being forced on school boards today because of funding that on a per-capita basis has gone down over the years, we may well pay more in the future as well as have a negative impact on children who might otherwise become very productive members of our society, both as citizens and as members who participate in the economy.

My question again to the minister is: are there any cost-benefit analyses of these impacts? If not, would the minister consider doing them so that we can make more sound decisions about how we invest in our kids' future and the education system?

[1705]

Hon. P. Fassbender: No, we haven't done a cost-benefit analysis. I think that kind of work is actually not realistic when you think of the province as a whole.

I will say this, however. In all of my life as a community volunteer, as an elected official at the local level and in engaging with my own grandchildren, I know that a well-rounded young person has the opportunity to explore their passions, whether it be music or art or welding or whatever they might have. We want to have a society where we try and provide as many of those things as we can.

As I've travelled the province, I've seen differences between Metro areas and the pressures and the things that are seen to be a priority, even within Metro between districts. I've seen schools where, for them, carpentry is a huge issue, where in another school a strings program…. I just was in a school in Cranbrook where they're bringing a strings program in that their board had decided to reduce the funding on. The actual school had made a change themselves because of the way their district is administered.

I think every school district needs to look at their demographics — be they cultural, be they in terms of unique issues that they face in some of the rural communities and the challenges they have — and they have to make the choices. That's why our system is structured the way it is. One size does not fit all throughout the province.

When I was in Prince George, I saw a great wraparound program at an inner-city school with at-risk kids where the principal made a decision, not based on any formulas but based on his interaction with the students. They invited community agencies to come in and work with them, not to add more to his budget but to bring them right into the schools and work with them day to day. I met students where the outcomes for those individual students were amazing.

I think that's the beauty of the flexibility that we have to have in a province as diverse and with cultural groups as diverse as we have. In my own community I see we have 161 different languages and dialects that are spoken. There are cultural differences, and we as the school system cannot meet all of them, but we embrace them
[ Page 3282 ]
and celebrate them. I was in a school in my own riding, Fleetwood high school, where the students have unique programs that they've developed together with the community and other volunteers that meet the needs of that cultural group, and there are a number of different cultural groups in their school.

I don't think there is a blanket answer to your question. I think there is a willingness on the part of the ministry to continue to develop programs and to provide leadership in the sense of where we need to go overall in skills training and creating an environment for an economy that is going to continue to provide the resources for all of the sectors of our society that we need. Then it is up to individual school boards to make the hard decisions.

You know, sometimes…. I've seen it. I've been in districts. I was in one rural community where they made a decision to close the school to save operating dollars so that they could keep up a drama program that they wanted. Not an easy decision. Lots of push-back from the people who were affected. At the end of the day, they've clearly said to me that that was their right choice — their right choice. I'm not advocating that as a blanket policy either.

Those are the kinds of choices where school boards are in the best position to make the decisions to ensure they provide a quality education.

[1710]

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for his answer.

You know, it's fine to talk about flexibility in educational choices according to the needs of a particular school or particular students, but there's a bit — and I think my constituents would agree with me — of a flavour here that's somewhat akin to saying that if we just continually reduce the amount of food available to a family, they'll show some flexibility in how they make do with not enough nutrition.

The fact is that the constituents I've talked to are quite clear. The Vancouver school board doesn't have the funding it needs to meet the educational needs of their children. They're concerned about it. They end up in meetings where they talk about which program is more important to them, but they also know in the end that the buck stops with the Ministry of Education.

I'll simply say to the minister — who said to me and to my constituents that no cost-benefit analysis has been done of the music programs in terms of enhancing educational outcomes overall and therefore the future of young people — that I hope that the Ministry of Education and this minister will look seriously at research that's being done in these areas and will consider what the research tells us about choices that we can make in the system and how funding certain aspects of the system now can save us far more money in the future.

With that, I know that other of my colleagues have questions to ask, and I'll thank the minister for his answer.

A. Weaver: Rather than take up time in estimates, I was just hoping to provide a list of written questions to the minister with the hope that I could get a written response in due time. These are questions that have arisen as a consequence of consultations with my constituents in Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Thank you for the questions. I will ask staff to go through these, and we will provide you written responses to them in due course.

J. Darcy: I want to ask a question in a couple of areas. The first is on New West Secondary School. We have one high school in….

Interjection.

J. Darcy: I'll just give the minister a minute. I just wanted your full attention on our one high school.

We have one high school in New Westminster — the New Westminster Secondary School. It has been around for 60 years. It's in very, very bad shape. I think the minister is familiar with that, both from a seismic perspective and maintenance. A lot of money has to be spent to keep the building maintained because of its age. We've had issues with rats. I mean, I could go on for a long time, but the ministry, I know, is familiar with this issue.

There have been discussions back and forth with previous Education Ministers. There have been numerous discussions, including one I had myself with ministry staff just a few months ago. I have to say that the number one issue — aside from traffic, perhaps, and the Pattullo Bridge — in most parents' minds, in most children's minds, is the issue of when we're going to have a commitment for a new high school, when we're going to have a project agreement signed with the minister in order to proceed on building this — absolutely.

This isn't about being able to move students somewhere else. It's not about choosing one school or another. There is one secondary school in a city of 67,000 people.

My question to the minister is very simple. Where are we at with approving a project agreement for the New West Secondary School?

[1715]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member did allude to the fact that she has had meetings with our staff.

That particular site is probably one of the most complex in the province for a host of reasons, which I know have been explained to the member. Our staff continues to meet with the New Westminster staff, with the consultants to develop and to look at the project scope and details around that complex site. I'm not going to go through the list of things that make it complex — I know you're aware of them — not the least of which is old burial grounds and a number of other things that we have
[ Page 3283 ]
to deal with.

However, we are pleased that the elementary school is near completion. The middle school is underway, as you know, and staff is dedicated to continuing to work with the New West staff. I asked: "Do we have a deadline date?" We don't because of the nature and the complexity of that particular project.

We will continue to work to find a scope and a deadline for the project and what the implications are, maybe what some of the options are that we need to look at. I don't know what those are at the moment, but those are what are being scoped out at the moment between New Westminster staff and our staff.

J. Darcy: If I could just follow up on that…. I mean, I know it's a complex project. It's been known that it's a complex project for many years, so this isn't something new. The whole issue of the burial sites, the official graveyard and the burial sites for First Nations and so on have been known. The fact that there are playing fields and that there's a theatre — all of those issues have been known for the approximately ten years, I think, that this has been under discussion.

I was really hoping and, most importantly, my constituents are really hoping…. The parents and the teachers and the people who work in New Westminster Secondary School were really hoping for something a bit more concrete than that. We know what the problems are. We know what the challenges are.

[1720]

As you said, the school district, the senior staff and the consultants have worked together, worked with your ministry very cooperatively, gone back and forth I don't know how many times. I would expect it's dozens of times in the course of the last number of years on this.

So I was really hoping to be able to take back a message to my constituents that, okay, there's an actual project agreement under discussion, and we are optimistic, we're moving forward, and these are the kinds of timelines we're looking at. It's not a new project. It seems to me the ministry has had lots and lots of time to explore those complexities.

Is the minister not able to give me anything more to go on? Believe you me, I'm going to be asked the minute I step onto a street in New Westminster.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I wish I had a definitive date and all of that for the member to take back. I don't. Our staff don't. Because of the complexity of this particular site and all of the attendant things….

Yes, I know a lot of them have been known, but we're looking at the risk factors as we plan to move ahead with the district and the implications of those risk factors and what that means. There are still a number of options that are being discussed. All I can say is our staff are dedicated to continuing to work with New Westminster.

We would like to see this issue move on, but before we can take it forward, in terms of the ask for the funding that may be required depending on the risks and the options, we need to do that due diligence. It does take time. Sometimes I think all of us think things take longer than they should, but indeed, that is the process, and staff are working as hard and as fast as they can to quantify the risks and what the options are against those risks.

J. Darcy: Well, I will move on to operating, but I do want to say that I'm very disappointed with the minister's response. In fact, when I met with ministry staff, senior staff, a few months ago, I was given far more fulsome explanations that I've received here from the minister. I was hoping, since three or four months have gone by now, that I would be able to get actually more information, not less information.

We're aware of the risk factors. Those things have been discussed. They've been known for many, many years. Maybe I'll need to ask for a private briefing in order to get more information.

[1725]

I would have thought that the estimates process would be an opportunity to actually hear this directly from the minister so that I can go back with some authority and report to my constituents about the situation. But I guess I'll follow up for a private briefing and hope to get more information there.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Our staff have met with the member. I'm sure they'll be happy to give you another update. My sense is, from what I've been told by staff on the specifics, particularly in the area of the capital side of it, the planning and the work that's going on, that another briefing isn't going to tell you any more than you were given the last time.

If I had a date, if they had a date, I'd be more than happy to share it. We don't. We're going to continue to work diligently to get there, but there are those complexities that have to be weighed. They will result in an ultimate envelope for that particular project. I don't want to anticipate what that might be at this stage, and neither does staff.

J. Darcy: Let me move to the operational side. I had the opportunity to listen to the responses the minister gave to some of my colleagues about the generalities around what's being spent on education. I want to be very specific.

Our school district is facing a $2.69 million shortfall on a budget of $61 million. That's aside from the money that needs to be repaid from money owing in the past.

It is going to have a very, very specific impact. It's anticipated that it could well mean a reduction. Already, in the past budget, there were dozens of staff positions that were cut — teacher positions, resource positions, spe-
[ Page 3284 ]
cial education assistants. This year it is expected that we will see a reduction of a further 15 full-time-equivalent teaching positions and 11 support staff positions, including special education assistants.

The school district is looking…. It looks as if they're going to have to increase the class size at the high school, in the on-line school, in the alternate programs and shut down, potentially, Hume Park Elementary School. It looks like they anticipate they may have to close the continuing education program, and the list goes on.

Last year the school district reduced the operating budget to something under $100 million. That meant virtually no purchasing of library, textbooks, computers and so on, which, as we know, are pretty critical in education. There has been a philosophy, completely understandable, that they should invest in students, not stuff. Therefore, a lot of the investments on the material side of things have been reduced significantly.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

That can't continue. They do have to invest in libraries, textbooks and computers because it is not sustainable to continue to reduce the way that they have.

You know, I've heard the minister's general responses about investment in education continuing to go up and essentially giving a message that we don't really have a challenge here. I want to say that in New Westminster school district there is a serious, serious challenge.

The students it will affect the most are the most vulnerable students. Those are the ESL students. Those are the students with special needs. Those are the students in some of the alternate programs that have been developed uniquely in the school district, in some cases, for some youth that are most at risk. A lot of those programs now — not because parents or the school district want to do it — are certainly up for grabs, no doubt with detriment to students and especially to students already most at risk.

Does the minister not understand that continuing to flatline education funding hurts real students, hurts their education development and hurts their opportunities to take part in this great economy of the future that we're supposed to be building in British Columbia? Does he not understand that it has real impacts on real students in my school district, school district 40, as well as across the province?

[1730]

Hon. P. Fassbender: We have been working very closely with New Westminster over the last number of years to support them in dealing with some of the challenges that they have. They are in some cases fairly significant. We continue to work with them. There is a new superintendent, as I'm sure you are well aware. We are going to continue to work with them. We've looked at everything, and there are a number of factors in New Westminster — ratios compared to other districts and those things. We're committed to doing what we can with New Westminster.

On the provincial scene, I fully understand the challenges. I don't ignore them. But I also look at the reality. We have since 2001 invested an additional $1 billion a year in the education system, and continue to do that.

We added all-day kindergarten, which we believe will have long-lasting effects for young people. They will be in the system. We'll start them on their journey earlier in a full-day kindergarten program at $120 million. We have our learning improvement fund, which is dealing with some of the special needs in districts, including some of the needs in New Westminster.

All I can tell the member is that New Westminster, as every district, has its unique attributes and challenges, and we're going to continue to focus on those. They've had them for quite a period of time. I have also heard all of the discussion in the community that's been reported. I don't take any of that, necessarily, as gospel, but I hear the comments.

I'm well aware that New Westminster has some unique challenges. We will work with them, work with the new superintendent, look at the funding that is available to them and some of the options that may be considered in that, with the ultimate effect to make sure that we do everything we can for the students in that community.

J. Darcy: I should also thank you for the response. I could also have noted the $900,000 additional cost pressures that come from collective agreements that are negotiated provincially but are passed to the school district.

There are some unique challenges. That's true. I want to be very clear that our school board is working together with the new school superintendent, who's highly regarded by everyone both at a staff level and at the trustee level, but the challenges are enormous ones.

[1735]

They're both the challenges of paying back the money from the last number of years, which they have been working at doing, but there are also very direct challenges as a result of this year's budget — costs that are downloaded and costs that are absolutely critical to a student's education that are not being covered.

We have a high proportion of special needs students in our school district. We also have a very high percentage of students, as is the case in much of the Lower Mainland…. We have people from about 67 different countries, more and more refugee and immigrant families coming to our community all the time. Our school district has done a suburb job in trying to meet the needs of the changing population as well as a high needs, special needs population and a high percentage of students at risk.

My plea is both about the general education picture in the province and also to say that our school district is
[ Page 3285 ]
doing its best. It's working closely with the ministry and has been for the last few years in order to ensure that a debt is paid off. But it is also really struggling, and students will be directly affected.

I want to make the plea to the minister that some of the issues about balancing budgets of the past not be used to ignore the very real shortfalls and the very real challenges that exist in meeting the education needs of the students in New Westminster now and over the next few years.

G. Holman: I thank the critic for allowing me a couple of questions.

I have two school districts in Saanich North and the Islands, as I'm sure the minister is aware — school district 64, Gulf Islands, and school district 63, Saanich. I've been listening off and on to the minister speak about making best efforts to work with school districts to work out funding issues.

I guess the message I would like to bring to the minister here today is that both of these school districts feel that, in fact, quite the opposite is happening, that despite the ministry's policy with respect to co-governance — which, as I understand it, is a commitment to work with school districts to make decisions collaboratively, and you speak a lot of trying to work things out collaboratively — both these school districts feel like the goalposts are being shifted quite considerably.

I know you're aware of the problems. Part of this is just documenting it on their behalf for the public record.

In school district 63 in particular, the two issues that you're well aware of are the open student initiative and the student information database. They feel quite strongly that they've had the rug pulled out from under them in terms of the requirements for the integration card, if I've got that right — ensuring that their system integrates properly with the information systems for the rest of the province and the contract that you're undertaking provincewide.

They feel quite strongly that they are…. Their understanding of that requirement was that certainly there would be some requirement for integration but that the costs and the level of integration…. They feel like they were quite honestly misled about what those requirements would be.

It's my understanding that they are actually continuing to make some modest investments in that system because they want to take it to a kind of level of completion. There are four or five other school districts, including school district 64, which were interested in taking that system up, but since they've had the rug pulled out….

It just seems a shame to me that after all this time and the dollars that have been invested and the promise there…. They feel quite strongly that they can make that system function better for a much lower cost than the system being developed now by the province.

I guess I'm just stating this for the record. A question in that regard is: are you continuing to have discussions with school district 63 about their system, about whether there's any possibility of making that work?

[1740]

The other thing I heard the minister talk about earlier was the notion of shared services and that government places a high priority on technological innovation. Here's an example where a school district has taken you at your word and is developing this system, which they feel would be more functional, lower-cost and would be shared by other school districts — so you know, right down the alley that the minister and this government have been talking about — but feel the rug has been pulled out.

Sorry to go on. I know you have to put up with a fair bit of rhetoric in these sessions. Are you continuing to have discussions with school district 63 about that system? Do you think there is any hope that we might be able to work something out there, where there are at least four or five other school districts looking forward to using that system with what appears to me, at this point, to be an incremental investment in a system in which there has already been a fair bit of work undertaken and dollars invested?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm very reluctant, when you get into these kinds of discussions, to get into a he said, she said and so on back and forth.

[1745]

What is very clear is the procurement process, and I went through a detailed explanation of that in a previous question earlier today. The government was complimented by the office of procurement for the process we went through.

One of the key requirements in that at the time was that any proponent who wished to submit had to be a legal entity. Indeed, Saanich did not meet that basic requirement in the RFQ. Therefore, they were not eligible to submit. Subsequent to that, I have met with them. The deputy has met with them.

We are committed to MyEducation B.C. We are not moving away from that. We are going to continue to do that. To date 53 out of 60 districts have signed on to MyEducation B.C. It is my absolute desire to see 60 districts signed on to MyEducation B.C. I did clearly state, as I believe that the deputy did, that we were not prepared to fund any of the integration with a separate system when we believe we have the most efficient, effective, cost-efficient system.

I appreciate that Saanich has a point of view of their own system. I would be surprised if they didn't. They made a presentation to myself shortly after I was appointed minister. I went through all of this with staff. The deputy has met again. I would hope that Saanich would look at this and work with us to move ahead on MyEducation B.C., which I see as the provincial system and one of the key elements of it.
[ Page 3286 ]

The service card has nothing to do with this. This process is strictly at this point. Ultimately, with the other additions to MyEducation B.C. and the opportunities by the nature of it and how robust a system it is, I can assure the member that MyEducation B.C. is one of the state of the art. It is the most flexible. It has the greatest opportunity for cost efficiency.

I appreciate that Saanich made a decision to invest significant dollars in a system, but I can also assure the member, based on all the information that I have, that no promises were made to Saanich either by myself or my predecessors or by staff at the time. There was a very open discussion as we moved down the road in the procurement process, in the requirements.

Unfortunately, they made a decision to continue with something in the hope that they could market it to other school districts. I don't think that's realistic, looking at where we are now and what we are communicating with school districts. That said, my staff in the ministry are more than willing to work with them to find out if there is another variation on that. I suspect there isn't. It wouldn't be fair in this discussion if I said I think that there's hope that their system can be integrated. I don't think it makes sense. I think they should sign on to MyEducation B.C., and if they have to cut their losses, that sometimes happens when you make a decision.

G. Holman: Well, I had some brief conversations with the minister, too, about the system a number of months ago. The message that I'm hearing now is somewhat different than the message I was hearing then. There it seemed to more sympathetic, more open to the possibility of the school district working this out. I don't want to get into the he said, she said. We talk about the need for certainty for our private sector investors, but here there's a clear case of where I don't think the ground rules were clear. They certainly weren't clear to the school district, and, you know, they're not dumb people. In any case, be that as it may.

I guess the other issue that school district 63 has recently publicly objected to is the insistence that they pay for, as I understand it, 50 percent of the seismic upgrades for one of their schools. My understanding is that they were underway with a contracting process for two schools, based on their understanding of what the funding formula was going to be based on previous commitments by the ministry. Again, that rug has been pulled out.

Now there's an insistence that they cover 50 percent. They're having to pull back. Instead of doing two schools, with some additional funding for upgrading for upgrading both of those schools, they're going to have to pull back and just focus in on one.

[1750]

It's another example of where, again, despite the co-governance principle here, which is a good one, the rug is getting pulled out from these school districts. The rules are changing as we speak.

I guess the question would be: has the minister met recently with the school district around that issue? Is the minister going to continue to insist that they pay for 50 percent of the upgrade through these so-called cash balances?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have not met with the chair or the board. We've had some dialogue through the media, and that's not always the best. But what I did say clearly…. And I saw his comments that he was pleased with the fact that I said that it is not a fixed edict that they have to come up with 50 percent. What I have said — I reiterated that at the B.C. School Trustees Association AGM — is that we are working with every single district to look at every single project.

We know that Parkland is on the books, and we also know that Cordova Bay is on the books. We also are aware of what restricted capital they currently have, and we're going to work within staff and look at each of those before any request goes forward to Treasury Board. And we're going to see if there is a way to look at what the options for them are.

I think the chair did say in the media that I read, and I hope that they have quoted him correctly, that he was pleased to understand that we're prepared to work with them on an individual basis, look at their circumstances, look at the two projects that we have project scope and reports for.

It comes down again to: are there elements of what they're asking for that maybe are not a priority that need to be discussed? Staff have told me again that they are going to meet with them and go through that before any final decisions are made. I think it's really important for every member, both on the government side and the opposition side, to know that what we are doing is doing it on a case-by-case, district-by-district, project-by-project basis.

There is no expectation that it has to be 50. It could be anywhere up to 50, depending on the circumstances. But before I take any project forward to Treasury Board, I want to be sure that that discussion has taken place between our staff and the district on each project, and whatever the formula is that is bathed in a business case will be what is taken forward to Treasury Board.

G. Holman: Thanks for that response. It is encouraging. I probably have been perhaps reading the media too much and not understanding that you're talking behind the scenes. It is encouraging that there is some flexibility there on that 50 percent rule.

[1755]

The issue of the so-called cash surpluses that school districts had — and I think hospitals, health authorities, etc. — came up in the Finance Committee, on which I sat.
[ Page 3287 ]
The point that school district 64 wants to make was that in some cases those surpluses are there for a good reason, in part for reasons that were essentially mandated by the ministry — for example, to take care of future liabilities, pension liabilities, unfunded wage and benefit settlements with teachers and support workers. Sometimes those cash balances are there for a very good reason.

If there are truly surplus funds, let's make some of those available to do seismic upgrading. As a principle, that doesn't seem unreasonable. But I think school district 64, in particular — you met with them over the weekend, or some of their reps — just wants to make clear that some of those cash balances are there to represent future liabilities, some of which are created by the government itself. That's my last rhetorical flourish, Mr. Minister, and thanks for your responses.

D. Eby: I have a letter from the Vancouver board of education in which they express the concern about being $11.65 million short this education year for their budget. They're projecting a shortfall of $26 million for next year. It comes on top of $47 million in spending cuts that have been made over the past decade.

They point out that B.C. is below the national average for per-student funding — $11,820 per student compared to $12,106 per student. We spend less of our GDP on education than the national average.

It's a unique letter. The minister has probably seen many of these letters, but it's a unique letter in that it's signed by everybody from the school board to the district parent advisory council, the district student council, every single union that you can imagine that's involved in the education system. In short, everybody who's involved in education in Vancouver has signed this letter expressing concern about this budget and about the shortfalls that come from it.

I could give all kinds of numbers and cuts and so on to the minister. The reality is that last night I was at the school board meeting where they were discussing what to do about these cuts and taking input from parents. There was a South Asian family that comes from India — a husband and wife and two kids. He said his wife didn't speak English, his daughter didn't speak English when they came, and the South Asian liaison worker was the only way that their family could figure out to access the school system and help their daughter succeed. One of those positions was being cut in the budget.

He was surrounded by people holding volleyballs and soccer balls — athletes — because they're losing the district athletic coordinator. And my office has been inundated with letters about the music program that's going to limp along this year but is almost certainly going to be cut next year.

Last time I was here I asked the minister whether he would come and talk to the parents at Bayview Elementary about the condition of the school and the seismic upgrade and so on. I'm hoping this time.... The minister responded that it would be appropriate to meet with the school board first. I know the minister has now met with the school board. I'm going to ask again: will the minister come? Will the minister make room in this budget to travel to Vancouver to meet with the parents that I heard from last night that are concerned about cuts to the school board?

We can argue about numbers all day. I'm sure the minister has lots of numbers. I have lots of numbers. But it's the parents, the student councils, the teachers that can tell the minister firsthand about the realities on the ground. I would like very much for him to come to Vancouver and to hear from parents about the realities that they face, to hear from the kids who were in the room last talking about their athletic programs. Really, for a couple of kids the only thing that's keeping them in school.... They are kids who are in a program called the gold program that is being cut. That was the only reason that they finished school.

It's really important to hear these things firsthand. I hope the minister will make some room in his budget and will tell me that there's room in his budget to meet with parents, to come. And if he needs help coordinating, we'd be glad to help coordinate.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have met with the Vancouver school board on a couple of occasions. One day I took an entire day, and I asked the Vancouver school board to take me where they wanted to take me and show me what they wanted me to see, which I think is the appropriate process.

[1800]

I spent the day with them. I visited a number of schools in Vancouver that they had identified they wanted may to see.

I continue to travel the province and meet with as many teachers, students and parents as I can, but I do that in conjunction with the school board. I am more than prepared to come back to Vancouver. It's not a long drive for me when I'm in my riding, and I'm happy to do that. Again, I will continue to meet with them and explore all of the options.

I'm not going to repeat the numbers that are on the record and that I did earlier. I know that my critic would like to keep moving. With that said, I'll sit down.

K. Corrigan: I am, as we all are in Burnaby, terribly proud of the public education system in the district of Burnaby. As many districts have, I think we have done everything we possibly can to do things right. We're a district that is very efficient — I believe the second-lowest administrative costs in the province.

We are a district that has worked very hard on partnerships that work very well for the public education system in Burnaby — partnerships with other ministries, part-
[ Page 3288 ]
nerships with organizations like the board of trade. We have 1,500 employers that provide career programming, career opportunities for students in our district. We work with the firefighters.

One of the big partners is the city of Burnaby, which has provided capital in terms of tracks at schools. Burnaby Central recently had an opening of that. The city of Burnaby provides some of the funding for eight community schools, half a million dollars for that. The crossing guards. We have adult crossing guards, which is almost unique in education. Our schools are open probably more than most districts for use by community groups and so on — open 365 days of the year, almost.

It's also a district that has received a great deal of recognition. At the recent BCSTA conference that has just completed, I think the Burnaby school district was featured two or three times because of the innovation and the quality and creativity of the programs. We have 30 child care sites at our school. It's another added thing that we do in Burnaby, as many communities do. We're very innovative. We have a hockey academy. We have a basketball academy.

We're very efficient in terms of energy. B.C. Hydro and Fortis fund 1.5 positions, and it means that we're saving $1.2 million a year on energy costs. We have a very effective international student program. Next year we're expecting that to bring in $14 million, and 40 percent of that revenue, approximately, goes to fund other programs.

I think that Burnaby has done, as I've said, everything it possibly can to be efficient, to be effective. It has been the source of many programs, as I know your staff knows. I see some familiar faces around you. Over the years, StrongStart and many other programs have started in Burnaby.

We have relatively stable enrolments. We are not a district which has been dropping in enrolment. We've managed to maintain our enrolment, despite some parents going to the private school system, but even that has stayed fairly stable over the last few years.

I say all of that because I know that there are comments sometimes made that there are reasons — dropping enrolment and so on — that would explain to some degree the challenges that a district is facing. I can't see anything that the district of Burnaby has not done or could do that it has not already done in terms of trying to be efficient and effective in the way it handles taxpayers' money.

Yet despite that — I don't know if it's finalized yet; in the last few days they were going to be finalized — if you were looking at a status quo budget, status quo services, we have almost $3 million worth of cuts in Burnaby that are going to happen. That means an increase in secondary school class sizes, cuts of elementary non-enrolling teachers, cuts of secondary non-enrolling teachers, cuts in district staff development, cuts to aboriginal education, cuts to district learning support services, which includes support for students who are deaf — a cut there.

[1805]

A major cut to custodial time in the schools. Cuts to clerical. Major cuts to adult and continuing education, transportation, district learning resources and so on. A total of $2.8 million in cuts for the coming year.

I have about three questions. The first one is: can the minister acknowledge that no matter how efficient a district is, how well it uses its funding…? The fact is that in Burnaby and other districts, because funding has not kept up with the costs of running a school district, the budget for this year, the funding for this year, is going to result in cuts of services in the school districts.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I acknowledge the great job that Burnaby has done and is doing. I also acknowledge that the enrolment is relatively stable. I think there's a difference from 2001 to now of about 400 students, give or take. There haven't been huge fluctuations. I recognize that they're working hard to find other sources of revenue and to do what they can to augment it.

I also recognize that costs have been going up. They've gone up for every agency in government. When that happens, you have to look at all of your priorities. It's like our own personal budgets. You have to make decisions as to whether or not there are things that you need to modify. I think because they are such a well-run district their challenges are perhaps less than they might be for other districts that have other challenges.

I don't have an answer other than to say that what they've proven over the years is that irrespective of some of the challenges they face, they've been able to manage it. I suspect they'll be able to do it this year as well.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I appreciate the compliments and will take those back to the district.

I guess what I'm looking for is an acknowledgment that this year particularly — there have been cuts in the past, but this year particularly — because of the funding levels and the increased costs, there is no way that the districts are going to be able to avoid cutting services. That's the simple question.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm not going to make that statement because it's up to each district to look at it. What I have said clearly is that the province has continued to invest in education. We have done so over $1 billion over the last number of years, since 2001. We've put in a learning improvement fund to deal with unique circumstances throughout the province. That, this year, is being topped up another $15 million. We have put in full-day kindergarten at a cost of $120 million.

[1810]

We continue to invest. Education is one of the few parts of government, along with Health, that has not faced drastic cuts, even in tough economic times for the
[ Page 3289 ]
province. We want to try and find that balance. Again, I compliment the Burnaby district for running a tight ship. I believe they're going to be able to manage this year, as they have in past years.

I'm not going to predict what next year holds, or the year after that. I hope the economy starts to rebound in a way that we can start to look at opportunities to reinvest in critical services, whether it's health care, education or other public services.

K. Corrigan: To the minister: again, thank you for the compliments and your confidence in the Burnaby school district and, I guess, the budget itself. You complimented the district on their ability to handle things.

The fact that they're going to have to cut almost $3 million worth of services certainly indicates that the funding is not sufficient, particularly given that the minister has said that Burnaby does an excellent job and has been very effective in how it's handled the funding that it's received. It is always working hard to make sure that it keeps those cuts away from the classroom or where it is most needed. This list, to me, indicates that this year that's impossible.

I also want to just read quickly from one paragraph from a recent board chair report signed by Baljinder Narang, the chair of the Burnaby board of education — this was dated April 22 — which says: "It's time for the provincial government and the Minister of Education to stop the rhetoric and properly fund education. It's time for the government to be leaders and reverse the acrimonious climate of labour relations. It is time for them to address the recent court decision on class size and composition once and for all."

The rest of it is very positive about how well Burnaby does and how proud we are of our advanced placement programs, our challenge programs, our academies, our international education, and so on.

I wanted to ask a couple of questions about a couple of programs and get some clarification on a couple of things. One of the things that I didn't mention, as well, is that Burnaby has the lowest per-pupil funding in the province.

My understanding, from the years I was on the school board and recently meeting with the board, is that that has to do with the funding formula. What is happening, as enrolment has declined across the province, is that has disproportionately hit those districts which have stable enrolment. The funding continues to go up for those districts and those that have declining enrolment, and I understand the reasons for that. But the problem means that the gap has been widening.

Despite all the efficiency and effectiveness, Burnaby has the lowest per-pupil funding in the province. I'm wondering if the ministry is thinking about taking a look at the funding formula and re-evaluating the funding formula.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yes.

K. Corrigan: Well, that was quick. Maybe I could get just a touch more detail on that. Is that a process that's happening…? I mean, I didn't even get a chance to have a sip of water.

Is that work that is happening right now? Can we look forward to the possibility that there will be changes coming, and if so, do we have any idea of the timelines?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'll stretch the answer out a little bit, but not too long.

At the BCSTA AGM, I was asked the same question, and I had the same answer. Yes, we will be looking at it.

We recognize some of the challenges that we have faced over the years. We recognize clearly where we need to go with education and some of the transformation agendas that we've worked with, with the BCTF and with other stakeholders throughout the province.

We want to do this carefully, because any change has effects no matter what we do. What we want to do…. It has to be well thought out. We want to do it in our relationship with the BCSTA.

[1815]

I did say at the AGM to the president, who was brought back by acclamation, and to the new board members that were elected that one of the reasons we're working as hard as we are on a co-governance definition and some of those things is to ensure that we look at all of the key elements that are going to sustain the education system in the future and how we can improve some of the things so that now, because of the way education is changing and will change, we can stay ahead of that change. The funding formula is one of those.

Can I give you an exact date? I hope that the work that is underway by Mr. McKay, who I announced the other day and spoke about at the AGM…. He is working with us. We're looking at the co-governance. We're looking at shared services. We're looking at all of the funding envelopes. We're looking at seismic upgrade and how we can keep that on track and other capital projects — how we can look at other opportunities in the skills area that was announced today, partnerships with other private sector organizations.

It's a huge issue. There's a lot of work to be done. I hope that, as we move towards the end of this year — and I hate to put a specific date on it — we're going to take the larger blocks and start to really drill into those and start to see some direction. The funding formula is absolutely a part of that.

K. Corrigan: One of the concerns that was expressed to me by board members in Burnaby was the possibility, with the international student program, that the province would take control or more control of the program and redirect students, as opposed to the system which is there now, which is basically that districts are responsible for recruiting and getting students.
[ Page 3290 ]

I'm wondering if there are any plans or any thought about redirecting students in the international program away from districts towards other districts?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I hope the member has had a chance to have a drink of water.

No is the short answer. And in that, what we are doing is we’re looking at components of the program with districts, part of our relationship with them, in terms of the quality of the program and ensuring that every student that comes to this country is well looked after across the spectrum, including homestays and criteria. So there is discussion, but there is no attempt to redirect students from one district to another.

The Chair: Noting the time, Member, perhaps one more question with, hopefully, a short answer.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm going to make it a really complicated question. Actually, it is somewhat complex, and I know it has been covered previously when I was not in the room. I'm wondering if the minister could clarify exactly…. I know that on the issue of capital costs…. What types of budgets, surpluses and reserves are being looked at in terms of cost-sharing?

There has been some confusion. I know the minister just said that we're looking at this on a case-by-case, district-by-district basis. But I'm wondering if the minister could explain exactly what surpluses or reserves are being considered, given that if there are moneys left at the end of the year, usually they're planned for some future project. Or if it's an operating reserve, it's planned to try to smooth out the funding over years so we don't have big bumps and cuts in service.

I'm wondering if I could get a bit of an overview of what is and is not being considered. Is it working capital? Is it the reserves? Does it include operating surplus? Maybe a bit of an overview of what is and isn't included.

[1820]

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I do indeed, Mr. Chair. Noting the hour, I want to make it clear that after sitting down with each district, we look at things like local capital, restricted capital and accumulated surplus in our review, where we work with them based on projects that are coming forward. What we don't touch is any cash that's being held for short-term obligations restricted by an external contributor, and those kinds of things.

What our staff is doing now to make sure that every single district understands clearly what will be looked at, what won't be looked at…. We're making that very clear. There has been some confusion. We've tried to make it clear. What we are doing with each district is when we're talking about projects, we will go through that list. We'll look at what's there and determine which things might be considered. Again, I will put quotes around the "might."

That said, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:22 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada